Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Building Contractors

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to continue the call-up of small building contractors over 40 years of age, fully employed as contractors to local authorities for repair of damaged houses urgently needed in industrial areas?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Under present arrangements building contractors over 40 years of age are not being called up for the Forces. When it is proposed to transfer such men to other work the value of the work on which they are engaged is taken into consideration, and the need to repair damaged houses is not overlooked.

Mr. Morrison: Would my right hon. Friend give his attention to these questions, because quite a number of small building contractors have been urged by other Government Departments to undertake contracts, and also by local authorities, to undertake the repair of damaged houses, and are in a quandary because they do not know whether they can enter into any undertakings from the point of view of whether they will be called away either for the Forces or for other purposes?

Mr. Bevin: The building situation is very difficult, and the first consideration I have to give is to the needs of strategy in view of forthcoming events.

Dismissed Workers (Reinstatement)

Mr. Arthur Hollins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the refusal of Messrs. Desoutter to reinstate Mr. V. S. Jackson after being authorised to do so by the local appeals board and the National Service officer; and whether he is aware of a similar case in the hosiery trade where an employer has refused to

reinstate three girls whose appeal against dismissal was upheld by the board; and will he inform the House what steps he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that while Desoutter Brothers Limited have paid Mr. Jackson his wages since they were directed to reinstate him, they claim that at present they have no work for him. I am taking steps on the lines of the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) on 10th June, 1943, so as to secure that work as well as wages may be found for Mr. Jackson. I cannot trace the case in the hosiery trade to which my hon. Friend refers; perhaps he will send me identifying particulars which will enable me to inquire into it.

Mr. Rhys Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he intends to endeavour to secure work for Mr. Jackson does that mean that he will see to it that Mr. Jackson is returned to Desoutter's firm and not someone else?

Mr. Bevin: If I am told that there is no work for a man under direction, I withdraw some other person to make a vacancy.

Mr. Oliver: Should not the aggrieved party sue on his contract of service for the wages due to him?

Mr. Bevin: He can sue for his wages which are due, but he is getting his wages.

Ex-W.A.A.F. Member (Employment)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has concluded his investigations into the case of the discharged member of the W.A.A.F. for whom suitable employment could not be found by the Caerphilly employment exchange; and what are the conclusions?

Mr. Bevin: I have written to my hon. Friend about this case.

Building Operatives

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulties that landlords are experiencing in getting essential repairs done to roofs, etc., of farm buildings; and will he therefore discontinue the calling up of building operatives in country districts who are engaged on this work?

Mr. Bevin: Under present arrangements building operatives who are not in the lowest age groups are not being called up,


but they may be considered for transfer to work of higher priority. The importance of essential repairs to farm buildings is fully recognised and would be taken into account before any man engaged on that work was withdrawn.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware of the short determent—three months—that has been given to these men when in business on their own, and does he think it reasonable for them to enter into contracts for repair to buildings with such a short term of deferment?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid I cannot increase deferments for 1944.

Directed Workers (Strikes)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Labour what redress or compensation is available to a worker with a family who is directed from his usual employment to work of national importance on the Clyde and is then deprived of his employment and remuneration owing to local strikes in which he is not directedly interested?

Mr. Bevin: In the kind of employment to which I think my hon. Friend is referring, the Essential Work Order provides that the worker shall, in these circumstances, continue to be entitled to his guaranteed wage unless the employer has given him four days' notice of its suspension. If the guaranteed wage is suspended, the worker is free to leave the employment immediately without special permission and can take other work.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why in that case, when I drew his attention to a case in particular where a man had been refused permission to take up his original employment, which was again offered, and also got no wages, he made the reply which he did?

Mr. Bevin: I do not quite remember the case.

Sir I. Albery: The point is that in his reply the right hon. Gentleman did not state what he stated to-day, neither has that action been carried out.

Mr. Bevin: I will look into the matter.

Repatriated Prisoners of War (Training, Scotland).

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Minister of Labour how many rehabilitation centres have been opened, or are to be

opened, in Scotland for the training of repatriated Scottish prisoners of war; and where they are, or are to be, situated?

Mr. Bevin: There are no special centres for repatriated prisoners of war, but facilities for the training of those who are disabled and discharged from the Forces are available in Scotland at one Government training centre and nine technical colleges.

Mr. Buchanan: Would the right hon. Gentleman really direct his officers' attention to the fact that returned prisoners of war should be better treated than other people who go to the exchange?

Mr. Bevin: They have instructions that the men who have returned from the Forces either as prisoners of war or wounded men shall be specially treated, and I should like any evidence that they are not being so treated.

Late Workers, Glasgow.

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Messrs. Barr and Stroud, Glasgow, lock out workers who are 15 minutes late; that many workers have to travel long distances and cannot always get on omnibuses; and will he take steps to have this practice stopped which hinders production and is unfair to the workers concerned?

Mr. Bevin: I am informed that an agreement was reached in April, 1943, between the management of Messrs. Barr and Stroud and workers' representatives under which the gates are closed at 8.15 a.m. and 1.45 p.m. It is understood that the agreement has been working satisfactorily since that date and that provision is made in it for workers being allowed entry if late through transport difficulties.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information from his own Department is that no provision or allowance is made because of transport difficulties? If the workers are not there at 8.15, they are locked out, and some workers have to travel distances of from 5 to 15 miles to reach their work. There is a case of one man who arrived at 8.18 and who had forgotten to bring the proper document that he should have done, and he asked to be allowed to bring it the next day, but still he was locked out. Will the right hon. Gentleman not make some other arrangements?

Essential Work Order

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give consideration to improving the Essential Work Order, so as to make it compulsory on an employer not to discharge a man when the National Service officer has sanctioned his release, if the man objects to being released, until the tribunal has reached a decision as this change would prevent the loss of man labour which happens now?

Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend's suggestion would mean that action would have to be suspended for a substantial period in all cases when an employer wished to terminate an engagement, and similarly a workman who applied for release would have to wait for a corresponding period in case his employer wished to appeal. I regret that I cannot see my way to introduce these general delays for the sake of meeting the small number of cases of difficulty which arise.

Mr. Tinker: When my right hon. Friend comes to examine the Essential Work Order, which wants some improvement, will he consider this point and try to get it remedied?

Mr. Bevin: I have considered it, and I do not want the House to be under any delusion. This is a two-sided case. No one would complain more bitterly than the workman at having to wait for the result of an appeal, which would arise if I amended the Order on the lines suggested.

Ministry of Labour Employees (Women under 45)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of women employed in his Department and in employment exchanges throughout the country under 45 years of age?

Mr. Bevin: The number of women under 45 employed in my Department (including employment exchanges throughout the country) is 14,990, of whom 1,832 are employed part-time. Of the total number, 8,828 are 30 and over, and 7,068 are married.

Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. Friend not think it would be more appropriate to use the experienced women of over 45 to undertake this delicate and difficult task of interviewing, rather than using younger women?

Mr. Bevin: I undertook that no one under 30 should do the interviewing; but I repeat what I said on a previous occasion—that my experience is that older women are not always the best interviewers of other women.

Discharged Service Personnel (Rehabilitation)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the Minister of Pensions, to extend the interim scheme, based on the Tomlinson Report for the rehabilitation of men and women discharged from the Forces because of wounds or other physical disabilities?

Mr. Bevin: The Tomlinson Report is concerned with the post-war problem, and plans for giving effect to it are well advanced. In the meantime, the Interim Scheme is being developed to the fullest possible extent for the benefit of men and women who have become disabled, as a result of service with the Forces or for other reasons. The Scheme provides special assistance towards employment, and also vocational training for those who require it.

Mr. Kirby: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that many of us consider that the rehabilitation scheme has not advanced far enough, considering that we expect fairly heavy casualties from Italy and very heavy fighting next year?

Mr. Bevin: Preparations are all made for the expansion which I explained last week, when I gave figures for the various places.

Mr. Messer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the value of occupational therapy in that it is a step towards rehabilitation? Can he connect up the occupational therapy departments of the hospitals with his already-established centres?

Mr. Bevin: Such a scheme is being worked out as well as we can do it.

Mr. Messer: But there are not the necessary centres.

Mining Industry (Underground Work)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in devising a scheme for directing young men into the mining industry which will avoid any discrimination between different classes; and whether he accepts the


principle that until such a scheme comes into operation the practice of directing surface workers against their will to underground work will be suspended?

Mr. Bevin: The matter raised in the first part of the Question is under consideration. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative. As I have informed the hon. Member, I cannot treat the movement of a worker from one job to another in the industry as if it were the same thing as compulsory recruitment from outside the industry.

Mr. Cocks: Even if the Minister cannot recognise the principle, will he suspend the practice, in view of the fact that there is a far greater difference between surface work and underground work than there is between work in one department and work in another department of a factory?

Mr. Bevin: That raises a very big question—which I am sure my hon. Friend would not like to have to settle—in connection with the Miners' Federation. Their claim has been all through that "in and around the mines" is the mining industry.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: So far as the first part of the Question is concerned, does responsibility lie with the right hon. Gentleman or with the Minister of Fuel and Power?

Mr. Bevin: I am the agent of the Minister of Fuel and Power, giving the actual directions; but he determines who shall go below ground.

Mr. Sloan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these people engaged on surface work do not in any circumstances go below ground? Why should they be treated differently from the others?

Mr. Bevin: I can only repeat that Members ought not to speak with two voices, one outside the House and the other inside. The claim is that "in and around the mines" is the mining industry, and I have not heard the Miners' Federation go back on that.

Nurses (Gloucester County Mental Hospital)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the correspondence sent to him relating to the shortage of mental nurses, particularly women, at the Gloucester County Mental

Hospital, which has 1,600 patients, including 300 evacuated ones and has now 35 per cent. fewer nurses than pre-war; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this deficiency in the nursing staff?

Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries into the matters dealt with in the correspondence referred to, and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lipson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, might I ask him to bear in mind that the strain on the reduced staff available is very great?

Girl's Employment

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Miss Scott, a girl of 19 years, despite three medical examinations by different doctors within three weeks, certifying her as fit for light employment only, has been twice ordered to undertake heavy factory work and turned down by doctors; that on two occasions she has been offered light employment on war work, which the local National Service officer forbade her to take up; and what action his Department now proposes to take?

Mr. Bevin: I am unable to identify this case. If my hon. Friend will send me further particulars, I will have inquiries made, and will write to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE

Deferments (Entertainment Artistes)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour the personnel of the committee dealing with deferments now functioning under Lord Lytton; its functions; the date of its establishment; and how many sittings it has had to date?

Mr. Bevin: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate a list of the members of this Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The functions of the Committee are to advise my Department on applications for the deferment of men and women subject to the National Service Acts who are employed in the commercial theatre. The Committee was set up on 5th March, 1942, and has held 32 meetings.

Following is a list of members of the Committee:

The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Lytton, K.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., Chairman.
Percival M. Selby, Esq., Vice-Chairman, Theatrical Managers' Association.


J. Christie, Esq., Provincial Entertainments Proprietors' and Managers' Association.
F. Dambman, Esq., The Musicians' Union.
Nat. Day, Esq., Association of Touring and Producing Managers.
Harry Foster, Esq., Agents' Association.
R. H. Gillespie, Esq., Entertainments Protection Association.
Will Hay, Esq., Variety Artists' Federation.
S. E. Linnit, Esq., Society of West End Managers' and Theatrical Managers' Association.
Capt. J. R. Pickering, Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain.
Llewellyn Rees, Esq., British Actors' Equity Association.
Percy Rowland, Esq., Theatres War Service Council.
Firth Shephard, Esq., Society of West End Managers.
H. R. Wright, Esq., National Association of Theatrical Employees.
Horace Collins, Esq., Secretary, Society of West End Theatre Managers.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour the date of constitution and functions of the May Committee dealing with deferment of service; the number of sittings of this Committee; the date of its last sitting; and the number of deferments it has recommended, male and female, respectively.

Mr. Bevin: The May Committee was set up in June, 1941, to advise my Department on applications for the deferment of men subject to the National Service Acts working for E.N.S.A. or C.E.M.A., and its terms of reference were subsequently widened to cover female artistes subject to the National Service Acts. There have been 30 meetings of the Committee, the last of which was held on 27th October, 1943. The number of men and women at present on deferment upon the recommendation of the Committee is 507 and 548 respectively.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour the number of male and female persons, respectively, under the age of 38 who have been given deferment to work for E.N.S.A. and of these the respective numbers whose work for E.N.S.A. is not full time; and what steps he is taking to secure replacements of these in clerical and administrative positions by persons of a higher age or discharged from military service.

Mr. Bevin: Deferment of calling up has been granted for 178 men below the age of 38; 548 female artistes, born between the years 1918 and 1924 inclusive, are retained for work with E.N.S.A. All of

these men and women are working full time for E.N.S.A. In addition, there is a number, not readily ascertainable, of older female artistes and of female administrative and clerical staff of all ages retained for work with E.N.S.A. The possibility of finding substitutes for persons employed in an administrative or clerical capacity is kept under review but is at present limited by the demands for additional staff to meet the expansion of entertainment for members of the Services at home and abroad and for workers in industry.

Discharged Officers

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Labour under what authority an officer, discharged from the Army for his own fault, is called up for military service?

Mr. Bevin: The authority for calling up for further military service a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces of the Crown is Section 4 of the National Service (No. 2) Act, 1941. The term "discharge" in this connection is defined as including cashiering, dismissal, removal, retirement and resignation.

Mr. Hannah: Can we have an assurance that officers or other ranks discharged from the Army for their own fault will not therefore escape their obligations for military service?

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member may have that assurance.

Major Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only about one word out of three of his replies can be heard by some of us who have by no means faulty hearing, and will he model himself in his answers on the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah)?

Women (Employment)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Labour whether a survey has yet been completed or undertaken of women in the Services, so as to ascertain whether they are fully and usefully employed; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. Bevin: The efficient use of women allocated to the Women's Auxiliary Services is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers. A joint inquiry into the use of Service women in static establishments, and their replacement, as far as possible, by immobile civilian labour, on a whole or part-time basis, was conducted early this year by


my Department and the three Service Departments, with useful results.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the many cases of wastage of labour in the Services which are brought to the notice of Members of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend try to maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the civil population and the demands of the Service Ministries?

Mr. Bevin: As is the case with all armies, I have to keep people who sometimes are not fully engaged as fighting units. But the day will come very soon when there will be none idle.

Sir I. Albery: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of how much usefulness resulted from that review?

DOMESTIC SERVICE (EMOLUMENTS, INCOME TAX)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether the estimate, in Command Paper 6481, paragraph 20, of the value of certain emoluments of domestic service, is based on the assumption that such emoluments are, or are not, assessable to Income Tax?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that the value of the emoluments in kind set out in paragraph 20 of Command Paper 6481 which are received by domestic staff resident in institutions is not assessable to Income Tax as part of their income.

PROSECUTIONS, 1914–18 (WORKERS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the number of prosecutions of workers during the war of 1914–18 for offences similar to those instituted by his Department during this war?

Mr. Bevin: The procedure during the war of 1914–18 was to bring these cases before munitions tribunals. The only statistics I have are for a period of rather less than a year up to the end of June, 1916. In that period 21,115 cases of complaint against employers or workpeople were brought before the tribunals.

Mr. Davies: How many of those were prosecuted by the Ministry of Labour at the time and sent to prison?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think that there was a Ministry of Labour then.

Mr. Davies: How many were prosecuted by the appropriate Department of State?

Mr. Bevin: As far as I know, there are no statistics which we can dig up on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper, in the name of Sir HERBERT WILLIAM:

21. To ask the Minister of Labour why it was necessary to pay £1,036,000 in unemployment benefit and unemployment allowances during the 13 weeks ended 25th September, 1943, having regard to his power to direct persons to employment.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask No. 21, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member, but he did not choose to get up.

Sir H. Williams: Another hon. Member was speaking to me, and I did not hear my name called.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Workers (Recuperative Changes)

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Health whether any Government scheme or schemes laid before the Government, proposes the systematic provision of suitable houses for workers needing recuperative changes without loss of pay?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am considering, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, arrangements for supplementing the present facilities for convalescent treatment of industrial workers, and hope to be able to make a statement on the subject before long. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware of the scheme for providing industrial workers with rest breaks, which is being developed with the support of the Ministry of Labour.

Requisitioning

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Health what guarantee have men serving in His Majesty's Forces, with wives on work of national importance, that homes left unoccupied in order


to help their country shall not be requisitioned by local councils under the new Act?

Mr. E. Brown: The object of delegating to local authorities the powers to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was to enable them to bring into use houses which were unoccupied and in this way to relieve as far as possible the needs of those who are badly housed, including the families of serving men. Under present conditions I should not be justified in excluding from these powers individual unoccupied houses on the ground that they belonged to or were let to any particular class of owner or tenant. I have, however, asked local authorities before considering the requisitioning of a particular property to ascertain the intention as regards re-letting or occupation by the owner or tenant. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular cases in mind and will send me particulars I will look into them at once.

OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the findings of the Assistance Board bearing on the co-ordination of grants and allowances to the supplementary pensions to old age and widows' pensions?

Mr. E. Brown: Not yet, Sir. But the Government hope to be able to lay draft Regulations before the House early in the new Session.

Mr. Tinker: I hope that the Government will get a move on, as I have been waiting for months, and the matter is deferred repeatedly. Is the Minister aware that I want it to go forward?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will understand that the legal responsibility here is not with the Government in the first instance but only in the second instance, and he must also understand that consolidation, simplication and modification of no fewer than 76 Regulations are forecast.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister be in a better position to make a statement early in the new Session? What does he mean by "early in the new Session"?

Mr. Brown: Just that.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister guarantee that this question of old age

pensions will be dealt with in the King's Speech?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do we understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that the delay has been due to the Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: I have not said that, but my hon. Friend well knows, as we all know, how difficult and complex is the solution and simplification of these Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

National Health Service

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to state when he hopes to be able to present his proposals in regard to the health services?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. But I trust it will be quite soon.

Maternity Cases (Gas and Air Apparatus)

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health why a gas and air apparatus for the purpose of easing the pains of childbirth is not provided in every maternity hospital and home where the Government has made provision for expectant mothers?

Mr. E. Brown: A gas and air apparatus has been supplied to every emergency maternity home where a request has been made by the local authority administering the home and where the staff included a midwife holding the special certificate for the administration of gas and air analgesia. In these days of shortage of midwives it is not always possible to spare a member of the staff to take the special training.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that anaesthetics were introduced into this country 100 years ago, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government still allow women in their own establishments to have their babies under primitive conditions?

Mr. Brown: That is not the Question on the Paper.

Nurses' Salaries Committee (Male Nurses)

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee dealing with male nurses and nursing orderlies will be issued?

Mr. E. Brown: I have received within the last few days the Second Report of the Nurses' Salaries Committee, which deals, among other things, with the salaries of male nurses employed hospitals other than mental hospitals End in public assistance institutions. I am arranging for the publication of the Report as soon as possible.

Mr. William Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before the Government adopt this Report, we shall have an opportunity of discussing it and not find ourselves committed without a discussion, as we were on the First Report?

Mr. Brown: That does not rest with me, but I will have the Report published as quickly as possible.

Tuberculosis (Sanatoria Nursing Staffs)

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether any machinery has been erected to obtain statistics showing the incidence of tuberculosis among the nursing staffs of tuberculosis sanatoria separate from those in general hospitals in England and Wales; and, if so, whether figures will be given showing the death and case rate?

Mr. E. Brown: No such machinery has yet been established, but I share the desire of my hon. Friend to obtain reliable statistical information on the point to which he refers. I am consulting my Medical Advisory Committee and my Standing Advisory Committee on Tuberculosis as to the scope and form of the inquiries which ought to be made to attain the object.

COUNTY AND COUNTY BOROUGH INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health the names of those county and county borough councils which have not yet appropriated, in whole or in part, their institutions under the Act of 1929?

Mr. E. Brown: With permission I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It contains 30 county councils and 30 county borough councils.

Following is the list:

The following are the local authorities in England and Wales which own institutions and have not appropriated them in whole or in part, under the Local Government Act, 1929:



County Councils (30)
County Borough Councils (30)


Bedford.



Buckingham.
Barrow-in-Furness.


Cambridge.
Bath.


Derby.
Blackburn.


Dorset.
Bournemouth


Isle of Ely.
Burton-on-Trent.


Hertford.
Canterbury.


Huntingdon.
Darlington.


Leicester.
Doncaster.


Northampton.
Eastbourne.


Northumberland.
East Ham.


Oxford.
Exeter.


Soke of Peterborough.
Gt. Yarmouth.


Rutland.
Hastings.


East Suffolk.
Huddersfield.


West Suffolk.
Kingston-upon-Hull.


East Sussex.
Lincoln.


Warwick.
Northampton.


Westmorland.
Norwich.


Isle of Wight.
Oxford.


Worcester.
Stoke-on-Trent.


Yorks, E.R.
Tvnemouth.


Anglesey.
Wallasey.


Brecknock.
West Ham.


Caernarvon.
Wigan.


Denbigh.
Wolverhamptom.


Merioneth.
Worcester.


Montgomery.
York.


Pembroke.
Merthyr Tvdfil.


Radnor.
Newport (Mon.).



Swansea.

INSTITUTION INMATES (POCKET-MONEY)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider extending the option of local authorities in the matter of giving pocket-money to inmates in their institutions to other than aged persons, to whom it is at present confined?

Mr. E. Brown: The Statute authorising the payment of pocket-money applies only to persons aged 65 years or upwards, and I have no power to extend its application to other persons.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Has the right hon. Gentleman been approached by local authorities asking for a change in the law in this matter?

Mr. Brown: I have had one or two communications from them.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: What reply did the right hon. Gentleman make?

Mr. Brown: I was only able to tell them what I have told the right hon. Gentleman to-day.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not the practice in many institutions to grant pocket-money to young persons and to middle-aged per-


sons, and does the answer mean that that practice is illegal?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member must put down that question.

Mr. Messer: Is the Minister aware that this practice prevails only in public assistance institutions, and can he make it possible for it to prevail in public health hospitals?

Mr. Brown: That is one of the points among a vast number that I have been considering.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the rather serious reply of the Minister, will he take steps to see that none of the institutions which have been granting small amounts of 1s. 6d. or so to their inmates shall now have to cease that practice, and will he look further into the matter?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member, as I said, had better put that question on the Paper.

OMNIBUS ACCIDENT, KNOTTINGLEY (AIRMEN'S PENSIONS)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the Minister of Pensions whether any decision has been made with regard to the appropriate compensation to be paid to two airmen discharged on account of serious injuries and to the dependants of eight airmen who were killed as a result of a motor-omnibus accident at Knottingley, Yorkshire, on 6th February, 1943?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Entitlement under the Pensions Order has been admitted in respect of this accident. Two of the three airmen who were injured in the accident have been admitted to pension, and in the case of the third, a medical examination has been arranged. Of the eight airmen who were unfortunately killed, only one left a widow, and she has been pensioned; the dependants of the other seven are regarded as having established their title to pension if they should become in need, and one such pension has been authorised. No award can at present be made in four of the cases as the dependants are not in pecuniary need and in the remaining two there has been no application.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not time the position was changed where a statement is sent to a mother that she has established her claim and that if she becomes poverty-

stricken later on they will consider giving her something?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no question of becoming poverty-stricken at all.

Mr. Gallacher: "Pecuniary need." What does that mean?

Sir W. Womersley: Not poverty-stricken.

Mr. Gallacher: Of course it does.

INDIA (FOOD SITUATION)

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for India how many persons of British nationality have died from starvation in the present Indian famine?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have not heard of any deaths of European British subjects amongst the victims of the present famine, if that is the information desired. His Majesty's Indian subjects are also of British nationality, no less than those of European descent.

Mr. Sloan: Are we to understand from the answer that where there is a will there is a way and that the organisation of food can take place if the Government want it to be done?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India when the report of the Food Grains Policy Committee, presided over by Sir Theodore Gregory, will be available; why only 150,000 tons of wheat was received out of the full amount asked for; what action is being taken to secure the 500,000 tons to create a central food grains reserve and the 1,000,000 tons for current consumption as recommended in the report; and whether shipping is being made available to convey the 100,000 tons of wheat offered by the Canadian Government and the 500,000 lbs. of condensed milk offered by the South African Government?

Mr. Amery: The report of the Food Grains Policy Committee was to be published in India at the end of last week, and a summary was included in the recent White Paper. The report in referring to the winter and spring of 1942–43 includes a statement that more than 150,000 tons of wheat were imported into India. Further shipments were suspended in May, 1943, with the concurrence of the Government of India in view of the excellent Punjab wheat harvest. As regards


current imports I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself in the Debate on 4th November. His Majesty's Goverment appreciate the generous offer of the Canadian Government to present 100,000 tons of wheat to the Government of India. The shipping position presents great difficulties and the broad position is that wheat can be shipped from Australia in under half the time and, therefore, with much greater economy in shipping. This consideration is likely to make it impossible to move any great part of the Canadian offer at present. Substantial quantities are already being shipped from Australia and further shipments have been planned. The milk products offered by the South African Government will be shipped.

Mr. Sorensen: While joining with the right hon. Gentleman in appreciating the offer of these Dominion Governments, may I ask him whether he was aware in the Debate last of the complaint of. Sir Theodore Gregory that only 100 tons had actually been delivered in India, and, if he was aware of it, may I ask why he did not state that fact?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir, it was not a complaint but a statement of fact, and in answer to an interjection during the Debate I actually gave the figures.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disparity between that which was asked for and that which was received? Did he bring that out in the Debate last week?

Mr. Amery: I brought out quite clearly what had been done and that it was all that was required to meet that situation.

Mr. Cocks: With regard to the point on shipping, ought not the needs of the starving peoples in India to have first priority?

Mr. Amery: Undoubtedly, but if one ship takes the same wheat from Australia in less than half the time, it is better to ship from Australia.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give figures showing the relative prices in Bengal of rice to-day and in November, 1938; and similar figures for the general index of commodities?

Mr. Amery: The average wholesale price of the main varieties of rice in Calcutta in November, 1938, was Rs. 4 per maund of 82–2/7ths lbs. The present controlled price is Rs. 20 per maund. The Indian Economic Adviser's General Index stands at 241 on the base mid-August, 1939=100. There was no considerable change between November, 1938, and August, 1939.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the controlled price, does he mean that rice is obtainable at that price or is that the price which is fixed and against which it is marketed at some other price?

Mr. Amery: I understand that it is now obtainable at that price and that the controlled price will be fixed lower before long.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that a good deal of rice has been sold at much more than 500 per cent. increase on the prewar price?

Mr. Amery: I believe that in some cases that has been true.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in the work of relieving victims of famine in Bengal, full use is being made of voluntary organisations and bodies such as university students?

Mr. Amery: A great deal of relief work is being done in Bengal by voluntary organisations and I am satisfied that every possible use will be made of such help. I do not know the extent to which University students organised as such are participating in this work but am making inquiries.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to push this, because officials everywhere, not only in India, are apt to be over slow in times of special emergency in using voluntary workers?

Mr. Amery: Yes, that is why I am making inquiries.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Calcutta University students, especially those of the Science Departments, are


already doing very valuable work in co-operation with the authorities?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made in the organisation of military relief measures in Bengal?

Mr. Amery: Troops are being located throughout the worst affected districts in Bengal to assist the civil authorities in the movement of grain to the villages, using military transport where possible. They will also assist in providing temporary shelters for the people. Arrangements for close liaison with the civil authorities have been made and medical appliances and personnel are being made available. The military arrangements were reported at the end of last week as having started working with encouraging results. Dispatches of foodgrains from Calcutta has increased more than 50 per cent. and the military machinery for detailed distribution was already working. I think there is good reason to be satisfied with the progress made.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Indian military authorities the appreciation felt in this country at their action?

Mr. Amery: I have already done so.

Mr. Kirkwood: Would the Minister contradict the rumour abroad that we in Britain are responsible for the starvation of these people?

Mr. Amery: Both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself made that clear in the Debate the other day.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Cannot there be some propaganda in America to tell the truth?

Mr. Gallacher: That is too dangerous.

HOUSING

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the consideration of the Motion on Housing, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cheltenham?
[That in the opinion of this House the way in which the housing problem in England and Wales during the war has been, and is being, mishandled by the Ministry of Health calls for the transfer of this service to another Ministry to deal with it more effectively.]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. No time will be given for a Debate on this Motion. The Ministry of Health does not and cannot in time of full war mobilisation possess the facilities which are necessary for a satisfactory handling of the domestic housing problem. I cannot hold out the slightest hope that peace-time requirements can be met as they should be under present intensifying war conditions.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Ministry has made the best possible use of such accommodation as is available?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Prime Minister aware that thousands of young people are getting married and have no homes to go to? Surely that is a serious situation in war-time. How can we fight the war when people have nowhere to lay their heads?

The Prime Minister: We are in the middle of an intense man-power stringency—nearly 1,250,000 more urgent approved needs than our population enables us to meet. I have to think of the overriding priority of war needs and to provide for many needs which must take precedence even over those which naturally commend themselves most to our inclination.

GENERAL CARTON DE WIART (DUTIES)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister what will be the duties of General Carton de Wiart in Chungking; and to whom he will be responsible?

The Prime Minister: General Carton de Wiart will act as my personal representative with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and he will also be under Admiral Mount-batten's orders as Principal Liaison Officer at Chungking. It is hoped that this additional contact between me and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek will be helpful in promoting close relations between us. It has been cordially welcomed by the Generalissimo.

Mr. Dugdale: May I ask the Prime Minister what General Carton de Wiart's relations will be with General Stilwell? Does he mean that we are in a position to give more direct aid to China as well as the indirect aid we have been giving?

The Prime Minister: Would the hon. Member repeat the second part of his Supplementary Question?

Mr. Dugdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that we shall now be able to afford direct aid to China in addition to the invaluable indirect aid we have already afforded?

The Prime Minister: The relations of General Carter de Wiart with General Stilwell will, I trust, be of the greatest comradeship and amity. I cannot make any statement on the forms of military aid that we intend to give to China except to say that everything in human power is being done.

STANDING ORDER NO.1 AND BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the proposals contained in the Motions standing on the Order Paper, in the names of the hon. Member for Marylebone and others, relating to Standing Order No. 1 and Business of the House, in order to secure more time for Private Members?
[That Standing Order No. 1 be amended by inserting in paragraph (2), line 9, at end, the words "in which event Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put half an hour after the Proceedings so exempted have been concluded.]
[That, in the opinion of this House, the curtailment of Private Members' privileges and Private Members' time during the war renders it necessary, either to provide one extra day each week the House is sitting for the purpose solely of enabling matters to be raised by Private Members upon a Motion for the Adjournment or to amend the Standing Orders so as to provide an opportunity for at least a half-hour's Debate upon the Adjournment at every sitting.]

The Prime Minister: My attention has been drawn to the Motions to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The Government desire that Private Members should have reasonable facilities for raising matters on the Adjournment and will consider proposals with this object in view at the beginning of next Session.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is the Prime Minister aware that his encouraging reply will give hopeful satisfaction to many Members of this House, especially to back benchers?

AGRICULTURE

Women's Land Army (Meals)

Mr. Cluse: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will authorise local Land Army officers, in areas where members of the Land Army are employed at hotels, to press for the provision of lunch and/or tea, free or at a reasonable charge, and thus avoid their having to seek these meals at varying distances from their place of employment and at some inconvenience and loss of time?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Difficulties of the nature the hon. Member apparently has in mind have not previously been brought to my notice. If he has any special case in mind and will let me have details, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Mr. Cluse: Is it not rather unfortunate that members of the Land Army engaged in the production of food for a hotel should have to leave that hotel to find a lunch, knowing that the hotel was being well supplied?

Mr. Hudson: No such case has been brought to my notice, but if the hon. Member will send me particulars, I will have it looked into.

Military Exercises

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make a statement about the proposal to set aside a further area of land in an area of which he has been informed for special military exercises on a scale so large as to destroy crops and necessitate the transfer of dairy and other cattle?

Mr. Hudson: I do not think I can usefully add to the reply which was given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, War Office, in regard to this matter.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the permanent loss of livelihood of a large number of people if this scheme goes through as at present arranged, and will he press for a further reconnaissance to be made?

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend can well imagine that I regret this extremely from the food production point of view, but, after all, we have to win the war, and military priorities must take precedence.

Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern caused in many parts of England at this taking of land, in view of the statement of the Minister of Food regarding our difficulties next year?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, but meanwhile we have not won the war.

Sir R. Glyn: We quite appreciate the importance of this training, but this is an area of 150,000 acres, and it means the loss of a large number of accredited tested dairy herds. Can some adequate arrangement be made to secure the milk supply?

Mr. Hudson: I am aware of all those facts. For what it is worth, the original area demanded was very much larger, and we have succeeded in cutting it down.

Mr. De la Bère: Nevertheless we cannot win the war without food.

Mr. Cocks: Can it not be arranged to have these exercises on foreign soil?

Livestock (Quality)

Colonel Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the war and its effects have produced any deterioration in the quality of our livestock?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Colonel Carver: Is there not a considerable falling off of our herd book entries, and will my right hon. Friend see that British livestock does not lose its place as being the best in the world?

BURMA (RECONSTRUCTION AND CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Burma the intentions of His Majesty's Government regarding the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Burma after her liberation from the Japanese occupation; whether it is proposed to ask Parliament to allocate money for this purpose; and whether he is able to supplement the statement made in April last concerning the future form of government in Burma, having regard to the assurance given by the Secretary of State for India, in January, 1931, that the separation of Burma from India would not prejudice Burma from realising a constitution similar to that India was likely to enjoy?

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): As regards the first two parts of the Question I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th February. With regard to the last part of the Question, there is nothing to add to the reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd April last.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a statement regarding the future political and economic position of Burma would do a great deal to counteract Japanese propaganda?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, or does he mean to suggest that nothing is to be said to the Burmans about their future position?

Mr. Amery: I did not suggest that, but the Question is one of the appropriate time.

PRISONS

First Offenders

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether arrangements can be made for separating first offenders in prisons from old offenders from the beginning of their

stay instead of, as now sometimes happens, after several weeks interval during which they are included with hardened offenders?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): A prisoner cannot be finally classified until his record has been received from the police, and under war-time conditions this often involves some delay. Governors have, however, a discretion to classify a prisoner as a "star" provisionally pending the receipt of his record, and I believe that generally speaking proper use is made of this discretion, but steps are being taken to remind all Governors that they should follow this procedure.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the lad, whoever he may be, is classified as soon as he is convicted?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid the hon. Member is off the rails. That is another issue altogether.

Voluntary Educational Work

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he will restore the facilities granted pre-war to voluntary agencies for educational work in prisons, seeing that in Holloway and some other prisons there is at present no provision for educational and humanising work other than the Sunday religious service and a supply of bibles and other miscellaneous books, while prisoners have opportunity in intercourse with other prisoners for instruction in immorality and petty crime?

Mr. H. Morrison: Owing to shortage of staff, particularly in women's prisons, and the difficulty of obtaining voluntary teachers in the evenings, it has been necessary to curtail the normal educational facilities, but it is not correct to say that no provision is made in prisons for educational and humanising work. With the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information, lectures are given at all prisons and Governors are often able to provide other lectures and concerts from local resources. At some prisons educational classes are still held in the evenings, and facilities for correspondence courses have been provided at Holloway and elsewhere. There is a library in every prison and all


possible steps are taken to encourage its use.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that experts on the subject are convinced that there is suitable personnel available for more education if governors of prisons were always more sympathetic?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Lady knows, I am very sympathetic to the object she has in mind, and certainly we will consider any offers of voluntary assistance that may be forthcoming, but there is also a prison staffing problem, because it involves staff considerations. I will do anything I can to be helpful in the direction wished.

Bed Boards (Disinfestation)

Mr. Astor: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the inefficiency of disinfestation processes, he will ensure that all bed boards in prisons which are found to contain insect life are destroyed?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Prison Commissioners have recently been in touch with the Medical Research Council on this subject and the disinfestation of bed boards is now proceeding on new lines, the results of which have so far been most encouraging. In view of the impossibility of replacing these boards in present circumstances, it would not be right to destroy those which can be effectively treated, but my hon. Friend can be assured that no pains are spared to deal with this matter thoroughly.

Mr. Astor: Is not imprisonment sufficient punishment without additional irritation?

NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (COST)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Home Secretary the total estimated cost of the N.F.S. for the next financial year; whether capital expenditure on pumps, static water tanks, etc., is now completed; what has been the cost of these items of equipment since the institution of the N.F.S.; and what has been the ascertained value of similar equipment taken over from local authorities?

Mr. H. Morrison: No estimate has yet been prepared of the cost of the National Fire Service for the next financial year. The current programmes for operational equipment, including pumps, and for the provision of emergency water supplies are

well advanced and the emergency water programme is substantially completed. The programmes are kept under continuous review in the light of developments in the war situation but, for reasons of security, it would not be in the public interest to begin to give such particulars as to equipment, etc., which would enable the enemy to form an estimate of our fire defences. Inventories of equipment taken over from local authorities were prepared on the institution of the National Fire Service but it is not possible, without much labour and research, to ascertain the aggregate value of this equipment.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (LOTTERIES)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that by reason of the intervention of the police in Ilkeston and Ripley in prohibiting the promotion of small lotteries on behalf of the local voluntary hospitals, these institutions have been deprived of a substantial income and are experiencing difficulty in discharging their obligations to the public; and whether he will favourably consider extending the exemptions of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, so as to exclude from the provisions of the Statute, with proper safeguards, lotteries promoted on behalf of voluntary hospitals pending the reorganisation of the hospital and medical services?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, to which my hon. Friend refers, exempts from the general prohibition against lotteries small lotteries which are incidental to certain entertainments or are confined to members of one society, and I understand that the Derbyshire police found it necessary to draw attention to these limitations, which they had reason to believe were being disregarded. Neither I nor the police can give any dispensation from the provisions of the law. On the other hand, to amend in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend provisions which Parliament settled after careful consideration nine years ago would raise very controversial issues which I cannot undertake to re-open.

Mr. Oliver: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the practice of a twopenny draw ticket has a demoralising effect on the working classes, having regard to the facilities that are available for gambling?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I should like to give an answer straight off.

Mr. Messer: Is it not more demoralising that hospitals should have to depend on this sort of thing?

JUVENILE COURTS

Mr. Robert Morgan: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider appointing experimentally women stipendiary magistrates to take charge of selected juvenile courts?

Mr. H. Morrison: In London the work of the juvenile courts has, since 1936, been carried out by lay justices, and in two of the six juvenile courts experienced women have acted as chairmen regularly and successfully. Whatever may be the arguments for the appointment of women as stipendiary magistrates, experience in London affords no support for any suggestion that such appointments are required because of difficulty in securing the services of highly competent lay justices. Outside the Metropolitan Police Court District I have no power to nominate stipendiary magistrates unless an application for such an appointment is made by the local authority.

TAXICAB SHARING

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: asked the Home Secretary whether he will ensure that greater publicity be given to the necessity of sharing taxicabs, especially in the organised queues at railway stations in the London areas?

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not think that at present I can usefully add anything to the answers given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. I would also refer my hon. Friend to my answer to a Question on the same subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) on 4th November.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Is it not clear from the reply that it is definitely not illegal for taxi drivers to allow the public to share cabs?

Mr. Morrison: I think not. I have no reason to think that.

THEFTS AT PORTS

Major Conant: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the increase in thieving at the ports; and whether he is satisfied that the punishments awarded to those who are convicted are an adequate deterrent?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I regret to say that the stealing of goods at the ports has increased during the war. This offence must be regarded, particularly in war time, as extremely serious and deserving of severe punishment, but I have no reason to think that the courts have not this consideration fully in mind when deciding the appropriate punishment in any particular case.

Major Conant: In view of the very great increase in wages now being paid at the docks, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a fine represents an adequate deterrent, and does he not think that usually a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed in such cases?

Mr. Morrison: It is a matter for the court on the evidence before it, and I do not think I ought to lay down directions as to what ought to happen in these cases.

Mr. Graham White: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider substituting the word "theft" for "pilfering" in official documents?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly consider that. It might be better understood.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Should not stevedores who are responsible for these pilferings be invited to enrol in one or other of our Forces so that they come under military law?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that that would be acceptable to the War Office.

BURGLARY AND HOUSEBREAKING, LONDON AREA

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Home Secretary the number of cases of housebreaking and theft of valuables, especially fur coats and clothing, that have been reported in the Metropolitan police district since September; and in how many instances have convictions been obtained?

Mr. H. Morrison: 1,603 cases of burglary, housebreaking and similar offences were reported in the Metropolitan Police


District during September and October, 1943. The available statistics do not classify these cases according to the kind of property stolen, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot say how many of them involved the theft of fur coats or other clothing. 439 arrests have been made in connection with these cases, but it is not yet possible to give particulars of the number of convictions obtained. Many cases are still pending before the courts, and in others further arrests may still be made.

Mr. G. Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these cases are of breaking in from premises that have been damaged in air raids, and that the police have no power to compel such premises to be put into such a condition that they cannot be used for breaking into adjoining ones?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that point.

PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER (TRAVELLING SHOWMEN)

Mr. Denville: asked the Home Secretary whether the possibility of altering the existing arrangement for Parliamentary registration so as to facilitate the exercise of the franchise by travelling showmen has been considered and with what result?

Mr. H. Morrison: Travelling showmen, like other persons who frequently change their residence, will be in a better position under the new scheme than under the pre-war system of preparing an annual register based on three months' residence during a specified period in the year. Under that scheme a travelling showman could not get a vote unless he happened to be stationed in one place during the particular three months specified the qualifying period, and he was liable, when the next annual register was prepared, to lose his vote unless he again happened to be resident in one place during the whole of the qualifying period. Under the new scheme, if a person is resident in a constituency for any period of two months he will qualify for a vote in that constituency and he will not lose that qualification unless and until he acquires a qualification in another constituency. Once a travelling showman has qualified to be registered, he will be entitled to claim, by reason of the nature of his occupation, to be put on the absent voters list and to exercise his vote by post.

INJURED CONSTABLE, KENT (DISCHARGE)

Sir I. Albery: asked the Home Secretary with reference to the case of constable W. A. Sherlock, injured on duty, which was brought to his notice on 7th June last, whether he is aware that this constable has received notice that his employment with the Kent constabulary will be terminated on 7th November, although no reply has yet been received to the representations made on his behalf?

Mr. H. Morrison: This case has presented special difficulty because it was not till January, 1943, that Mr. Sherlock made a claim in respect of an injury said to have been sustained in August 1940. His claim—which is in respect of an injury allowance under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme—is under consideration by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Pensions. Recently Mr. Sherlock has had to be discharged on medical grounds from his employment as a War Reserve Constable, but this discharge does not, of course, prejudice any claim he may have under the Personal Injuries Scheme.

Sir I. Albery: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I point out that five months have elapsed since the attention of his Department was directed to this case, and will he therefore tell me whether there will shortly be a decision on the matter?

Mr. Morrison: That, I think, would be a matter for the Minister of Pensions, and not for me.

STATE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY (HOME SECRETARY'S SPEECH, DUNDEE)

Major Lloyd: asked the Home Secretary whether the expenses involved in the holding of the public meeting in the Caird Hall, Dundee, on 3rd October last, attended by the Regional Commissioner for Scotland and his deputy, at which he delivered a speech on the subject of State control of industry after the war, have been, or whether arrangements are being made for them to be, paid for out of public funds or will they be chargeable to the ratepayers of Dundee?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. and gallant Member who is addressing similar meetings and who certainly does not advocate Socialism


or Communism to put down Questions of this kind directed to the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: No point of Order arises. If a question is in accordance with the Rules of the House, an hon. Member is entitled to put it.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I was the guest of the Lord Provost and the Corporation of Dundee on this occasion and none of the cost tell on public funds. As regards the latter part of the Question, the financial arrangements made by my hosts are hardly a matter for me.

Major Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the belief that this meeting was to be held for the Civil Defence Services of Dundee, the A.R.P. Controller of Civil Defence Services issued 1,400 tickets and that the Lord Provost and all sorts of influential persons had the advantage of attending the meeting, at which no reference to Civil Defence Services was made at all?

Mr. Morrison: As to the composition of the meeting, that is a matter for the local authorities. As to the rest of the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I hope they all derived benefit from what I said. May I just add that I think it is a bit out of proportion for extreme anti-controllers to be so anxious to control me in what I say?

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Deputy Regional Commissioner for Scotland happened to be the prospective Labour candidate for Dundee?

Mr. Mathers: Is the Home Secretary aware that this is one of a series of Questions of the same character and that there is general detestation of the policy of persecution that they indicate?

Mr. Morrison: I am very well aware that this is one of a series of Questions, which I have noted with great interest. I think that what my hon. Friend said in the latter part of his Question is true.

ALLIES' MUTUAL AID (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION)

Mr. Pethick - Lawrence: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make with regard to the publica-

tion of particulars of the contribution made by this country in the form of mutual aid to our Allies?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): Yes, Sir. I have to-day laid in the Vote Office, a Report on Mutual Aid, and, with the permission of the House, I shall make a brief statement on that Paper. The oustanding act of statesmanship of the President of the United States in the conception of Lend-Lease is known to all the world. Two and a half years ago, before the United States had entered the war, this aid began to flow towards us. At that time we stood alone, the sole fortress of democracy, and I think we may claim that the use we made of the help from the democratic arsenal in the West fulfilled one purpose of the Lend-Lease Act, whose official title was an "Act to promote the defence of the United States." Since then the British Commonwealth has been joined by a great alliance; Russia has joined us, the United States have joined us, the French Forces in North Africa have joined us, and the countries under the invader's tyranny have rallied their spirit and are contributing every day to the common war. With this help we have been able increasingly, as time went on, to follow the memorable example set by the United States and to develop the pooling of resources among all the Allies. Lend-Lease, therefore, has ceased to flow in one direction only; it has become a system of mutual aid. We ourselves are now furnishing huge supplies without payment, and indeed without calculation, to the United States, to Russia and to our European Allies. I believe that the vast extent of the mutual aid which we are furnishing is not understood in this country, far less abroad.
Some months ago, therefore, my predecessor decided that, just as the President of the United States presents a report to Congress on Lend-Lease, a White Paper should be presented to Parliament on Mutual Aid. As I have said, we furnish this aid without payment, and indeed without calculation. Hon. Members will be able to see from the White Paper that accurate and comprehensive calculation, even had we wished it, is not possible for us without a gross misuse of man-power. A large part of our mutual aid is furnished, so to speak, in retail quantities to the American Forces under training and in the field in


many areas. In other cases we are "servicing" their Forces. In the case of Russia we are sending large quantities of essential war equipment of which the value can be reasonably measured, though no one can attach a value to the hazardous task of bringing those supplies safely to Russia.
Complete figures cannot therefore be given, but I thought it right to see how far the Paper which Sir Kingsley Wood had put in hand could be elaborated, so that at least, partial figures up to the end of June should be available. The White Paper shows at the same time that not the least valuable part of our mutual aid is of a kind to which no specific cost of production can be readily assigned. We learned much while we were fighting alone and the price was heavy. Those lessons and that experience have been, as of course they should be, freely at the disposal of our Allies. But I cannot put a budgetary figure on help of that kind. Therefore, it is only in a very limited sense that this White Paper introduces the money symbol and to those, if there are any, who wish to judge these matters as a business deal, the effect is to underestimate the real material cost that falls upon us. I should have preferred not to have introduced the money symbol even partially into this record. But experience has shown that it is almost impossible to convey the order of magnitude of what we are doing without recourse to figures. In using these figures the House will, however, remember that, for the reasons given, the various indications of cost which are found in the White Paper, if they are added up, will not tell the whole story.
When my predecessor was working on the White Paper he decided, with the full approval of the Government, that it was our duty, and consistent with the conception of the pooling of resources, that we should offer to the United States as mutual aid, without payment, essential raw materials, foodstuffs and the associated shipping services, supplied by the United Kingdom and the Colonies to the United States Government. The details of this offer have been under discussion in the meantime, and some particulars concerning it are now made public in the White Paper. This House will appreciate that this brings a whole new category of goods within the field of mutual aid. It means inevitably that our net

external indebtedness will be, as a result, correspondingly increased. Nevertheless, the Lend-Lease system is now so comprehensive in its scope that His Majesty's Government have felt they should offer this further extension of our mutual aid; and we offer it without reluctance to mark our whole-hearted acceptance of the principle of a general pooling of resources, so far as it is practicable.
I have also taken the opportunity of this report to give some particulars of another aspect of our external financial burden, the vast scale of which is liable to be overlooked. Over the whole area from Tunis to the frontiers of Burma, we are mainly responsible for very large cash outgoings to cover the various local expenses of the war, which cannot be met by imported goods. Most of this we have to borrow and carry forward as a heavy burden into the times of peace. This is not of the same character as the mutual aid, which is furnished in terms of current goods and services. But it is, of course, a much greater prospective burden, precisely because it cannot be covered by current effort. For this means that we have to borrow the equivalent cost, thus incurring a liability, which hangs over our economic recovery and must, therefore, be taken into account in considering the scale of our external financial effort as a whole and our ability to shoulder any additional burdens.
We have not weighed what we can afford to give to our Allies. I think that the House would wish this to be our policy, strained though our resources have been by the long years of war. But the House and the public should not misunderstand what it means for us. I hope that the House will approve the principles of the Paper and that public opinion will be enabled through its publication to do justice to the extent of our contribution.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: While agreeing, in general, with the principle adumbrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to not giving precise details, in terms of money, of the Lend-Lease services, may the House take it that, from the point of view of accounting, all the expenditure incurred will be brought under the control and audit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and will be available, as are other matters of this kind, for overlooking by the Public Accounts Committee?

Sir J. Anderson: I can certainly give my right hon. Friend that assurance, and


in regard to materials supplied in the field to the Armies of our Allies exactly the same checks and safeguards are applied, outside the sphere of actual accounting, as apply to the supplies furnished to our own troops.

Mr. Molson: Does India come into the scheme of Lend-Lease? Does India benefit from Lend-Lease, and does it give assistance to the other Allies, under the system of Lend-Lease?

Sir J. Anderson: India, like the self-governing Dominions, is subject to separate arrangements between the respective Governments.

Sir H. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiry how it was that a very extensive and reasonably accurate summary of what he has just told us appeared in the newspapers yesterday?

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Third Report from the Committee on Public Petitions, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Seventeenth and Eighteenth Reports from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed (Nos. 131 and 132).

Minutes of Proceedings of the Select Committee to be printed (No. 133).

MOSCOW CONFERENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I welcome this opportunity of giving to the House some account of the proceedings of the Foreign Secretaries' Conference concluded in Moscow a few days ago. It will not have escaped the observation of my hon. Friends that the communiqué and the published documents which accompanied it were unusually full. We, in fact, included in them all those portions of the work of the Conference about which we felt it possible to make public statements at this present time. This was done, of course, by agreement between the three of us, and so the House will understand that I cannot now add much fresh matter to the published declarations on the work of the Conference. There are, however, some comments that I would wish to make upon that work and one or two personal impressions that I would like to give to the House.
Let me say at the outset that the results of the Conference exceeded my hopes. As we worked, the sense of confidence grew, and this, in turn, seemed to give an added momentum to our progress, so that it was better in the middle than at the beginning, and better at the end than in the middle. So it is, that looking back across those 15 days of the work we did in the Soviet capital, I can say with absolute assurance that they have brought new warmth and new confidence into all our dealings with our Soviet and American friends. We met 12 times in full session, but, of course, that did not represent by any means the whole of the work done. Apart from those meetings, we each of us had a large number of informal conversations with our colleagues. I had such talks with Marshal Stalin and Mr. Molotov, as well as with Mr. Cordell Hull and Mr. Harriman, the American Ambassador. The actual achievements of the Conference, about which I want to say a word or two in a moment, seem to me solid enough, but it was the friendly atmosphere of mutual interest and mutual confidence in which all these conversations took place, which, to me, will always make the Moscow Conference memorable.
The first difficulty—and it was quite a stubborn one—which Mr. Hull and encountered was to persuade Mr. Molotov to preside at our meetings. He was anxious that we should undertake that task in turn, but we succeeded in convincing him that an army has probably a better chance in battle if it does not change its general every day, and we certainly could not have made a happier decision. As the House knows, I have in my life attended a good many international gatherings and not always, I am sorry to say, have they been conspicuously successful, but I have yet to sit under a chairman who showed greater patience, skill and judgment than did Mr. Molotov, and I must say that it was to his handling of a long and complicated agenda that must go a large measure of the credit for whatever success we achieved.
I think, too, that my friend and colleague Mr. Cordell Hull must feel that the results of the Conference have justified his efforts and his very gallant venture in making this long flight. Certainly we were fortunate to have him with us, and his sincerity and singleness of purpose were a great encouragement to us at every step. The House will understand from what I have said that the relations between colleagues were good and that they were equally good among the staffs, but, apart from military matters, an which I want to say a word in a moment, I must pay a special tribute to the work of His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, Sir Archibald Clark-Kerr. Much of the preparatory laying of the ground that is necessary for such a Conference fell to him, and he has rendered remarkable services to Anglo-Soviet understanding. I must also be allowed to pay my tribute to the brilliant Foreign Office leader of our team, Mr. Strang, who indefatigably helped us at every stage.
I believe that all of us who were at that Conference were conscious from the beginning of its work how much the future of millions of people depended upon the outcome of our labours, and we were, in consequence, all the more determined to do everything in our power to make it a success. Thus we met round the table on a basis of complete equality. We were able to discuss our problems and to state our views, conscious that we were each of us striving for one purpose and one pur-


pose only—to try to bring the war to an end in victory at the earliest possible moment and thereafter in full co-operation with each other to ensure that the peoples of the world might live at peace.
Now a word on what the Conference did. We all agreed to start the talks with a discussion of measures for shortening the duration of the war. Though this topic is one of direct interest to all hon. Members in this House, they will not, for obvious reasons, expect me to give an account of the conclusions reached on this chapter of our work beyond the very carefully chosen words of the communiqué itself. The results of our discussions on this head can only be made public as they develop at the expense of the common enemy. I can only say that I have confidence that that development will be found generally satisfactory by hon. Members in all parts of the House. But this I can say about our military discussions, that I believe that perhaps they did more good to our mutual relations by the frank and exhaustive examination which was made of them than any other phase of the Conference. There was no tendency on the part of any of the delegates to dodge any of the difficult and important issues that these military matters raised, and I am deeply indebted to General Ismay, whom the Prime Minister generously lent to me, for the invaluable part which he played in this sphere of our work.
Now I would say something about the first of the published decisions of the Conference—the four nations' declaration. Nothing could give a better proof of Mr. Hull's vision and statesmanship than that declaration on general security, of which he is the parent. The principle which we agreed to in this declaration constitutes, on the whole, probably the most far-reaching of the decisions to which we came. These decisions cover the whole future organisation of world security, and for that reason we were happy that the Government of China could associate itself with us and approve with us this document and be a common original signatory to it. A word on the significance of this document. As within nations, so between nations, when the immediate common effort needed for victory is over it is hard to hold the same unity in the years that follow. That is a lesson of which we are only too well aware, and the importance

of this declaration is in the emphasis it lays on the decision of our Governments to continue our co-operation and our collaboration after the war. This, I emphasise, does not apply only to certain measures required for the defeat of the enemy and to see that the business does not start again, but it also applies to the whole long-term organisation of security. Good as that is, the four nations' declaration would not have been, in my judgment, quite enough by itself. It is absolutely essential that there should be between us special machinery, over and above the ordinary machinery of diplomatic interchange, through which this country and its great Allies can work continuously together, and concert rapidly and efficiently their views on the many political problems which arise out of the war. Our whole experience during this war has shown the urgent need for some such machinery, but there have always been geographical or other difficulties which have made it difficult to set it up.
It was a great—perhaps the greatest—achievement of the Conference to take the first steps in establishing this machinery. What we need most urgently and most immediately is some body, some organisation, to act as a clearing house for the exchange of information and ideas between us upon certain questions that will certainly arise as the war progresses. It is for this purpose that the Conference decided to set up in London a European Advisory Commission composed of responsible representatives of this country, of the United States and of the Soviet Union. This Commission, I must emphasise, is advisory in character. It will be set up at once. It will be its duty to study and to make joint recommendations to the three Governments on any question which the three Governments agree to refer to it. The object we have in mind is to be able by this machinery to look ahead and to make agreed plans for dealing with problems that will face us in the future. If we can do that, we shall be able to keep in step at every stage, and thus we can avoid some of the delays and some of the misunderstandings which inevitably occur when each of us makes his plans separately, however good those plans may happen to be. I think the House will understand what were the practical reasons which made us think it desirable to limit the initial members of this Advisory


Commission to the three Powers, but I must emphasise again that this is an advisory and not an executive body. It is a piece of machinery set up for the convenience of the three Governments themselves; it is not an instrument for imposing their views on others. It is designed to concert political planning among the three great Powers, for the truth must be faced that it is upon these three Powers principally that will rest the responsibility for ensuring that this war is followed by a lasting peace. If we can agree together, we three, there is no problem that is not capable finally of solution. If we do not agree together there is no international event which cannot become an international problem. I felt that very strongly when we examined the question of this machinery, but of course setting up this machinery does not mean that we exclude other methods of consultation between the three Governments. We did at the Conference set on foot what is, I think, in diplomatic procedure something of a novelty, that is to say, we agreed that on occasions there might be problems which we should wish to submit to one of the capitals where the Foreign Secretary concerned and the two Ambassadors could meet together and discuss and advise upon it. Sometimes that might happen in London, sometimes in Washington, sometimes in Moscow. It would be something in the nature of an ad hoc tripartite conference of the Foreign Secretary and two Ambassadors which might be given a special task in any one of the capitals. I think that may prove to be a useful piece of machinery.
Now I come to another piece of Machinery we set up, and that is concerned with Italy. We have set up an Inter-Allied Advisory Council to deal with Italy. This body is quite independent of the European Advisory Commission which is to sit in London and it has a specific, definite task to perform. Its duty will be to deal with day-to-day questions other than, of course, military operations, and to make agreed recommendations for the purpose of co-ordinating our Allied policy in regard to Italy. It will be set up at once, with representatives from this country, the United States, the Soviet Union and the French Committee of National Liberation, and we have also made provision to add to it representatives of Greece and Yugoslavia as soon as we

possibly can. The whole House will feel that these two countries have a special interest in Italian affairs as a consequence of the acts of aggression which they have suffered. It is my belief that this Council will be useful in ensuring and maintaining a common policy among us in regard to Italy.
We took occasion, Mr. Hull and I, at the Conference to give our Soviet colleagues an account of the history of Allied military government in Italy, about which there has been some little misconception in this country and elsewhere. We gave an account of that and of the principles on which we had based it, and as a result of that and the discussions on it we had no difficulty at all in reaching agreement on the declaration regarding policy in Italy which has now been published. This declaration I think is also in itself an important element in creating understanding between our three countries. That is all I have to say about the various items of machinery which the Conference set up. They have a big job to do, but if this machinery works well, as I have every hope it will, it can make a substantial contribution to winning the war and still more to winning the peace.
I turn for a moment to one other important branch of our future responsibilities—economic. During the Conference Mr. Molotov and I had the chance to hear at first hand from Mr. Hull about measures of economic co-operation which, as we know, he has always had very much at heart. Indeed, after security, these economic questions constitute the most important field in which the lot of man can be improved. We had a useful exchange of views on these questions, and I am glad to say that we all three of us found ourselves in agreement on the programme for handling these vast problems, on many of which work has, as the House knows, already began.
While we were in session we noticed with some interest that German propaganda was extremely active. It kept suggesting that every kind of difference had arisen between us and tried to sow dissension by every means in its power. I should like to report that all these attempts failed utterly, and in that brief fortnight the last chance of creating disunity between the three Allied Powers was completely and finally destroyed.


The Nazi leaders must now look somewhere else. They must now understand that they have no hope by this means of escaping the fate which is overtaking them. I hope as the end draws nearer they will read the warning issued at the end of the Conference in the names of the Prime Minister, the President and Marshal Stalin that those German officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have had any connection with atrocities and executions in countries overrun by German forces will be taken back to the countries in which their crimes were committed to be charged and punished according to the laws of those countries.
As regards the remainder of the agenda, it is sufficient to say there was no major political question in Europe which was not the subject of discussion between us in some form or other. I am not going to pretend for a moment that we were agreed on every point. That would indeed be the international millennium and we are nowhere near that yet. But what I can say is that we do now know each other's points of view on all these subjects. We discussed them with the utmost frankness, and I believe that in the spirit of good will which is now being established we can reasonably hope to make progress with even the most stubborn among them. As many Members will know, it is a common diplomatic experience to find that problems which seem to present insuperable difficulties when there is no confidence and no mutual trust can fall into a different perspective when once a real basis of good will has been established. Then perhaps you can get that reasonable compromise which in other conditions appears hopeless of realisation. I count it, and this is the impression I would like to leave, as the major success of the Moscow Conference, not that we agreed these documents, not even that we set up this machinery, great though the importance which I attach to it, but that it did provide a basis of good will and confidence between us. I believe that has been won and I believe that it ought to endure, and that it should enable us to deal together with the problems that will lie ahead. Of course there will be set-backs and disappointments, we must expect them, but what is important is that the differences should be honestly and

frankly faced and that we should together try to bring about their solution.
The Anglo-American-Soviet association which has found encouraging expression in this Conference is based on the firmest of all foundations, a common interest. The three countries have the same strong interest in peace, they have the same interest in securing that no aggressor shall again break the peace. I have seen fears expressed that as a result of this there will be some dictatorship imposed by the three Powers on others. I can assure the House that nothing of the kind is in our minds at all. Of course, we want association with others. Of course, we want the opportunity of full discussion, but, as I have said, special responsibilities do rest on our three Powers, and we did at Moscow try to devise machinery and agree on a policy which would enable us to give expression to that sense of our responsibility. Of course, we shall need the advice of others, and, of course, we shall welcome the advice of others, but the first essential is that we should get our machinery working between us three. We must proceed by stages. That does not exclude further developments in the future if all goes well.
At all times it is extremely difficult to assess the value of work in which one has been engaged oneself. It is not very easy to get the perspective right. But I have given the House my reasons for thinking that this Conference has produced concrete results. We three Powers discussed any and every subject with exactly the same ease and freedom as any three Members of this House could do, and sometimes with a good deal less controversy. We had no formalities, we had no set speeches at any time, we had no wrangle as to which subject was to come before the other on the agenda, or any of those familiar difficulties which those who attend Conferences know so well. I find all this heartening for the future, and I feel that we can enter the closing months of 1943 with a greater measure of confidence than seemed possible a brief while ago.
What is our country's role to be? Surely to use all our strength and all our authority to promote the growth of this confidence. We are not going to do that by some new subtle tricks of diplomacy but merely by treating our Russian and American friends as we treated each other


in Moscow, that is to say, as loyal colleagues in an equal partnership. We can let our imagination play a little on what may be the consequences for good in this close association of three great Powers, the United States with over 135 millions, the Soviet Union with an even larger population, and these Islands, the heart and centre of a great Commonwealth and Empire.
There is one matter to which I must now refer. On my return journey I was glad of an opportunity of meeting the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs. We exchanged views on the general situation in the light of the Moscow Conference. My Turkish colleague has now returned to Ankara to report on the outcome of these conversations to his Government. In the meantime, there is nothing further I can say.
There is one final reflection I would like to leave with the House before I close. When I was in Moscow—and I think those who were with me would bear me out—I could not but be conscious of the quiet confidence of the Red Army in itself and of the Soviet people in the Red Army. Twice in our brief stay notable victories had been won, and they were celebrated in the traditional manner with salvoes of artillery and fireworks. But it seemed to me that as the guns of Moscow thundered out their congratulations to the Army their note was not only one of exultation but, even more, a stern warning to the enemy of what was yet to come.
On my return flight, or rather just before it, I made a request to my Soviet hosts. I asked them whether they would be good enough to agree to our aircraft circling low aver Stalingrad. This was readily agreed to, and we were able thus to get a close view of this city of imperishable fame. We most of us have seen devastated areas in our time, either in this war or in the last or in some other experience of our lives, but none of us in that aeroplane had ever seen destruction on a scale to parallel the destruction of Stalingrad—none of us. Every house must have been a fortress, every street must have been a battle ground. There could have been no encounter more fierce in all history and, I should imagine, few, if any, more costly in human life. When you see that, when you see for miles and

miles mounds of machinery twisted and flung about as though some great giant had dealt with it, factories completely destroyed, then you begin to understand that patient earnestness which the Russians feel for an early conclusion of this war. Our own people who have had the suffering and punishment of war now for more than four years share that resolve. I am confident that the Russians know they share that resolve, and I could not help reflecting, as we flew over Stalingrad: is it not possible that out of it all we shall be able together so to order the world that these cities that have been utterly shattered shall live again and that this time they can live their lives in lasting peace?

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate the warmth of the welcome offered to him by the House. We are glad to see him safely back from what has been, I think, up to now the most momentous visit abroad of his political career. I do not myself regard this as a suitable occasion for a full dress Debate on the Moscow Conference and its implications, and therefore I do not propose to deal with that problem, though I do suggest to my right hon. Friend that an adequate opportunity will be provided in the Debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech for a discussion in circumstances tar more favourable than the circumstances of an Adjournment Debate of this kind. I would only offer two remarks. The first is, I think, that undoubtedly clouds of suspicion between us and the United States and us and the U.S.S.R. have darkened counsel and prevented a full co-operation, and that in my view no more significant event has taken place in the war up to now than the Moscow Conference, which, as my right hon. Friend said with so much confidence, has brought about a new spirit of co-operation. My second statement is that I welcomed the speech made by Marshal Stalin last Saturday. It was the speech of a great statesman. It was a speech full of hope and a speech which indicated to my mind that we had blown away the clouds of suspicion in the present and were determined to march together in the future.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: This occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield


(Mr. Greenwood) has said, is not an occasion for a full dress review of the Moscow Conference. Yet it is not an occasion which this House should allow to pass without comment and without a certain amount of discussion and argument. In the first place, I think it would be the desire of all of us to offer our congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and to say how glad we are to see him back again safe among us after one of those great journeys, always hazardous in war-time, as this House has good reason to know through the loss of other of its respected Members, and looking, as far as one can see, fit, hale and hearty and even ready to start on some more. This is the fourth of his great journeys this year. Twice he has crossed the Atlantic, once gone to North Africa, and now to the centre of Russia and back. It is an example of the physical demands which are made upon leading statesmen at the present time, and we have every reason to congratulate ourselves upon the fact that our leaders are tough and resolute, hardened by years of war and by long periods of controversy in this House, and are perfectly capable of making these great journeys and keeping up their wicket very well at the other end.
The fact of this journey is not in itself the only thing upon which we wish to congratulate him. We also wish to congratulate him upon the results of his journey. We also wish briefly to discuss them to-day. He said, and I think rightly, that after all the results, copious as they were in the columns of print we read about it, were of small importance compared with the establishment of an atmosphere of good will and co-operation which he confidently reported to us. The gulfs, the enormous gulfs, both spiritual and physical, which divide the three great Powers which have now come into collaboration cannot be bridged except by repeated expeditions of the kind which he has just undertaken. We know through our own experience in contact with those from the United States that great gaps in our mutual knowledge, in our mutual information divide us from the citizens of that great country, to say nothing of the great distances. Those great distances are as nothing to those which separate the people of this country from the citizens of the Soviet Union. Yet there is among everyone in this country a deep desire to draw closer to

these two great countries which in the case of Soviet Russia reaches almost mystical lengths. The Secretary of State-has just spoken of his visit by aeroplane over the ruins of Stalingrad. I do not know anything which has touched the imagination of the ordinary citizens of this country more than the gift given by the King of the Sword of Honour to the citizens of that city. In my own City of Glasgow alone 58,000 people lined up merely to go through a hall and see this gift of steel which was being made to the steel-hearted citizens of the steel city. These mystical desires for friendship and collaboration need stronger foundation than mere desire. We must come down to positive, concrete suggestions. These I have no doubt were discussed in the inner councils of the 12 full sessions and the other off-the-record meetings which the Secretary of State has described to us.
But it is true that many of these meetings must be reported in the terms he used about his meeting with the Turkish Ambassador and about his meeting with the Turkish Foreign Secretary, which was one of the frankest and most honest statements I have ever heard from any Foreign Secretary at any time and conveyed as much information to the House as many statements I have heard clothed in more extended language. It is impossible, of course, that he should give even the slightest inkling of the decisions reached on military matters though these, he said, were the first things discussed at those great meetings. I was glad that he paid a tribute to General Ismay, because undoubtedly if we had not been able to put cards very frankly on the table as to divisions, guns, aeroplanes, war potential, forces to be brought into-effect, all the good will in the would have gone for very little in the subsequent meetings of the council.
Marshal Stalin is a great realist in those matters. It has been said that on more than one occasion, scrutinising the desirability of some possible Ally, he has put the blunt question, "How many divisions does he dispose of?" The answer to that question counted very much in his estimate of the desirability of the alliance. That is the first fundamental lesson of the Conference—might, force, potential war materials. We are grappling with a terrible adversary, and the gift of a sword from this country has been taken as sym-


bolical by all the citizens of this country, as a proper gift in this hour of the breaking of nations. Military matters were the first to be discussed at the Conference—necessarily so.
Next, the Conference decided to restore freedom and independence to Austria. That is a momentous decision indeed. It involves a certain interference with the affairs of Europe—a standing interference—or, at any rate, a standing interest in the affairs of Europe, by these three great Powers. Such decisions should not, even on the first day, be allowed to go without comment in this House. I commend them most heartily to my colleagues. Let us not blind ourselves to the weight of the responsibilities that we are now shouldering.
Furthermore the Conference was as notable for the things which it did not mention in its published documents as for the things which it did mention. On that we must admit the discretion, and admire the frankness, of the Foreign Secretary when he said, "There was, at any rate, no problem which we did not discuss. We put our cards on the table as to all and each of them. Our two colleagues know the views of this country, as we were freely and frankly informed of theirs." Naturally, no one wishes to trespass on the discretion of the Foreign Secretary, but great and important problems must have been raised at this Conference, of which no whisper emerged in the accounts subsequently published. It would however be a mistake to allow any of these things to blind us to the fact that no conference could settle everything at once. You must start somewhere. A start has been made with this nucleus of three great and mighty people, who have expressed the desire, which exists, I believe, among their citizens, to live and work, and fight, together; and from such a nucleus all things may come. It is terribly necessary in the years immediately ahead, the years of turmoil. The war of 1914 to 1918 was not the war to end war; it was the beginning of turmoil, and not the end of it. We cannot say that we have passed even half-way through the period of turmoil with which the world is now faced. The mighty power of the machines, the engines, governs us. Even this vast struggle is conditioned by the absorption of this new

reinforcement to the powers of mankind. Who can have read without a feeling of awe that in a recent air raid 4,000,000 horse-power was contained in the engines of aircraft flying from this country in a single day and night? The equivalent of the strength of nearly 40,000,000 men were represented on those aircraft. Can we master the machines before they devour us? That is the problem before the peoples of the world in the immediate future. It cannot be done without strong good men, who are willing to stand together, who know each other, and who have personal experience of each other's point of view and good faith. That is the importance of the relationship which was established at Moscow.
The steering committee has been set up. It is not all the ship, or all the crew, but it consists of the men at the helm, the men at the wheel, the men who will try to drive the ship and direct. It is a great responsibility which they have taken upon themselves, and we ought to wish them all success. That Committee has been established with a very wide base. Human folly is an ineradicable part of man's make-up. The only way to correct it is to bring in the widest possible baseline from which may be integrated a final component, which will eradicate some of the errors at the original trajectories. The wide base was widened by the inclusion of China. We are all grateful for that. Wide the base must be, and solid it must be, if we are to build upon it any enduring residence for mankind. The beginning of that base was made by the Prime Minister's broadcast when Russia entered the war. The continuation of it is announced to-day. It is a great step forward. Those who have made that step have taken great risks. They have assumed enormous responsibilities. These responsibilities cannot be fulfilled unless with the weight and backing of the great nations with which they belong. To this House has come the first opportunity of reviewing that work. It is to this House to-day to give its first approval to those steps which have been taken, those relations which have been established, those hopes which the Foreign Secretary has laid before us. Today this House, I believe, will confirm these aspirations, these proposals, which the Foreign Secretary has laid before us. It is not yet the time for a close review,


but it is the time to say, "God speed the work." That is the message I would give to the Foreign Secretary and to the world. That is the message which I hope will go out from this House to-day.

Sir Percy Harris: I want to reinforce what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said in his concluding words. We, as a House of Commons, should not only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary on his safe return, but should endorse what was a great achievement.

Mr. Maxton: The term "endorse" has been used by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and it is now being used by the right hon. Baronet. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman who declares the attitude of the Opposition on these occasions has deliberately postponed the question of endorsement until the Debate on the Address. What we are now having is an Adjournment Debate, which is neither an endorsement nor otherwise, and it would be unwise, since the world is listening to the first democratic Chamber discussing this matter, to bring in the question of endorsing the step that the right hon. Gentleman has taken. That is a matter for the Debate on the Address.

Sir P. Harris: I do not take that view. We waited for the right hon. Gentleman's return so that we could have a statement. I think that the House should take the earliest opportunity of showing its approval.

Mr. Maxton: Does that mean that if one is critical one must attack to-day?

Sir P. Harris: My hon. Friend is always able to look after himself. I am speaking for myself.

Mr. Maxton: That is all right then.

Sir P. Harris: I believe that I represent the feeling of the country when I say that not only do we approve, but that we should express our approval in the only way we can, by stating it. If you consider the history of the relations of these three countries, the misunderstandings of the past and the suspicions, it is a great achievement to the credit of all three parties that they have got together. They have come to an agreement and understanding, not merely on the prosecution

of the war, but as to the principles on which the post-war world should be built. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the vast numbers represented in this Conference. China is included. If we assume that we are speaking for the Dominions, India and the Colonies, we can claim that this Conference spoke for over 1,000,000,000 of the people of this world. I know that there are suspicions and disappointments. That is inevitable. But the fact that arrangements were made for a permanent consultative council will provide for the discussion and ventilation of grievances as the war proceeds. It cannot be too much emphasised that, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is not the aim of these great Powers to have any exclusive control over the development of Europe after the war. It is no use concealing that there are disappointments about the omission of reference in the published statement to certain countries. Poland, which has a special claim on the sympathy and help of this country, is naturally sensitive about the position she is likely to occupy after the war. Stalin made a very remarkable speech in which he said:
Together with our Allies, we shall have first to liberate all the peoples of Europe from the German invader, and then co-operate with them in the creation of their national States, which were dismembered by the Fascist enslavers. The people of France, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and other States now must become free and independent. Secondly, the liberated peoples of Europe shall be given complete freedom to decide for themselves the structure of their own States.
It was noticed that in the first version of the speech Poland was not specifically mentioned. Obviously, you could not have a list containing the name of every country. Now the Russian Government have gone out of their way to make it clear that Poland is included in the list. We in this House cannot forget the historic occasion, one Sunday morning, when war was declared. The primary and immediate cause was the invasion of Poland. Poland was the first to suffer the full blast of German brutalities and invasion. It was because of special guarantees that Poland made her magnificent resistance to the invader. No country in all Europe—and that is saying a lot—has suffered more from the cruelties and brutalities of the Nazi invader, with her cities laid waste and her population either murdered or moved from their homes, and the


Polish people naturally are exceptionally sensitive. But when the war is over their country, to which they are devoted, should again have its freedom. I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the Polish people are not overlooked in the redrawing of the map of Europe. There are many Polish citizens in this country. They have lost all contact with their country, and many of them know of their homes having been broken up and of their relatives having been murdered, and it is right on an occasion of rejoicing like this to say that this House of Commons has not forgotten the claims of the Polish people. I am satisfied too, that, in the permanent Committee that is now to be constantly in touch with problems of the reorganisation of Europe, the Polish people can feel that their interests will be safeguarded.
It is not unreasonable to say something about France. The French people have a great history and have made an immense contribution to the civilisation not only of Europe but of mankind. They have always been regarded as one of the great Powers. For 30 years France was our intimate Ally. With them, we entered this war. Misfortune has dogged their steps. They see their country for nearly four years already in the hands of the enemy, the hated Boche, that has been the traditional enemy of the French people, and naturally they are sensitive, when there is a Conference in Moscow, that, as a great Power, they do not play their part. We have to be realists—that is inevitable—but we should recognise the great part that France must play in the future in the interests of Europe and that the status of the French people will be recognised. I was immensely impressed by the great speech of the Prime Minister at the Mansion House, when he went out of his way to hold out the hand of friendship to France and the leaders who are keeping alive the resistance to the hated invader. It is absolutely vital for the future of Europe that there shall be a strong and a powerful France. It would be a disaster if France were reduced to the level of a minor Power. For a proper balance of Western Europe, a strong France, in association with democracy, is essential. The German culture and German civilisation have been disgraced and will be for generations to come.
France has always been for the last century the upholder of those principles for which we are mainly fighting—equality, liberty and fraternity. The French, owing to circumstances largely out of the control of their own people, that is, the failure of their politicians and their military leaders, now find themselves in chains. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a good friend of France, will see that in the new Committee which is to be set up in London every encouragement is given first to the Provisional Government and, secondly, to the underground movement, to the French men and women who are so valiently keeping alive the torch of liberty and the national spirit of their country. I recognise the difficulties, but I am satisfied that the Provisional Government which has been set up—I like to describe it as a Provisional Government, although constitutionally it is not recognised—will have every assistance in discharging its difficult task. We have recognised more or less the Italian Provisional Government as constitutional. Is it too much to ask that in their difficult task, the Government which has been set up in North Africa shall have every assistance and co-operation possible from the Governments of this country, of the United States of America and of Russia?
I hope that I have not said too much. Immediately one touches upon international questions one has to be discreet, but I would say in conclusion that I have complete confidence in the good will and in the wisdom of this combination between the great Powers of the United States of America, the U.S.S.R. and Great Britain. I believe that in spite of their conflicting ideologies and their different outlook on both political and economic problems we can look to this new understanding for the proper safeguard of the liberties of the much-troubled and much-worried peoples of Europe who are now suffering from Nazi tyranny and rule.

Mr. Burgin: I rise to associate my hon. Friends with the tributes that have been paid to-day to the Foreign Secretary. I personally do not consider that it is the moment at which to embark upon a discussion or examination of the account which he has given to us of the Moscow Conference. If we did so, we would probably be making his task rather harder, and therefore I wish—and he will be the first to understand—to confine my


observations to those of felicitation and congratulation upon a dazzling personal success. The world is the debtor of the Foreign Secretary. I think that to-day—Armistice Day—it was rather nice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) should have been in his place, and particularly on 11th November that it should be possible for him to have been in the House. What we are doing to-day is to pay tribute to a Parliamentarian and a man of peace who comes back with laurels thick upon him, and we are doing it on Armistice Day, with its memories and with its hopes. It is not only the great leaders of martial works who build bridges over the Dneiper, the Volturno and the Trigno that we welcome. We welcome the man of peace who is doing a great deal to build a bridge of world understanding. In Russia they have a very charming custom. When they wish to say "Thank you" for some outstanding act of merit, they say in their expressive language, "We bring you Russia's thanks." I know of nothing better that I, an old Ministerial colleague of my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friends who are associated with me on these benches can say to the Foreign Secretary than, "We bring you Britain's thanks."

Mr. Maxton: I did not want to make a speech on this matter at all, and did not intend to address the House at any length if it had not been for the unfortunate contretemps between the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and myself. I intervene to correct the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to impress on the world that here to-day this House of Commons was solemnly discussing and debating the whole content of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts at Moscow and endorsing them. I remember how enthusiastically the return of Mr. Chamberlain from Munich was endorsed by this House and how, in a very short time afterwards, the endorsement was not being accepted. I join with everybody else in being glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back again. I think I could join in saying that I believe he played his part at the Conference table adequately with the two other principal representatives at the gathering. Probably he has brought home something that will

help towards the speedy ending of the war and perhaps something that may be able to make arrangements for the immediate pacification following the war, but I do not for one moment think that he has laid down the machinery of permanent peace or even a permanent machine that will continue for very long into the period after the cessation of hostilities.

Mr. Kirkwood: But it is the best up to date.

Mr. Maxton: It is the only thing up to date, but that is no reason why Members of this House should throw their hats into the air and say, "Hurrah, we have found the philosopher's stone." The right hon. Gentleman was trying to say something like that, and all that I am asking here is that there should be a postponement of the view of this House until the very early opportunity that will be available to this House. Presumably, if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench speaks for anybody in this House—I do not know whether he does—at least he should speak for people who sit immediately behind him, but that does not seem to be so—it should be postponed until we have a proper and adequate occasion when the House can not only discuss but give its opinion. I only want to say that these decisions Were come to in the midst of a war, and in a place that was getting news about outstanding military victories, and on the military field nothing was going wrong anywhere, the three nations met together and they felt a feeling of very fine harmony. But I do not think that Soviet Russia, large-scale, energetic, capitalist America, and Conservative Britain—because that is what was represented at Moscow and represented as capably and as persuasively as British Conservatism could be represented—I do not believe that British Conservatism, American capitalism and Soviet Russia have either political, economic or social philosophies that can continue them as good companions over an extended journey in the post-war period.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: What about their self-interest?

Mr. Maxton: That is a hope the hon. Gentleman may have, but, on the other hand, I have the hope that there will be


big movements of political thought among the ordinary peoples of all countries, not merely these three countries, which will bring a social philosophy more common to all than is represented by the three wry diverse political philosophies that came out of the very harmonious but not very enduring Agreement recently at Moscow.

Mr. Martin: Like everyone who has spoken so far in this Debate, I would like to add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary on his Mission. My mind goes back now not so much to what happened in Moscow last week but to what has been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman over a number of years. My mind goes back particularly to nearly ten years ago, when he went on the first Mission the British Government sent to Russia after the last war and laid the foundation of his Russian policy. My mind also goes back to the occasion two or three years ago in this House when the enthusiasm for the Russian Treaty was not so evident in any part of the House as perhaps it is to-day and when the right hon. Gentleman, in order to put the Treaty over, had to face a good many obstacles. The salute I would like to give to-day is to the patient and courageous statesmanship which, over a long period of time, has served the best interests of this country and the world, despite so many obstacles and difficulties which have grown up in the right hon. Gentleman's path or have been put in his way. Having paid that quite sincere tribute, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I now turn to the occasion of the Moscow Conference and examine it in perhaps a rather more critical light.
I want to direct the attention of the House and to ask two questions about the fourth clause of the published manifesto from the Moscow Conference. That clause deals with the international organisation to be set up when the war is over, and it says:
They recognise the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organisation based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace loving States and open to the membership of all such States.
The questions I want to ask the Foreign Secretary are these: Are nations to be

free in this organisation to adopt any form of government based on any political theory they choose—Fascist or any other—and to develop them to any extent they may wish? If the answer is that that is so, then are they simultaneously to be allowed to be the sole arbiters of the extent and nature of their own armaments? These two principles are inherent in free and equal sovereignty, but they are not compatible with the true interest of any real comity of nations. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that either nations must be restrained from planning and developing a form of government or pursuing the policy inimical to the independence and well-being of their neighbours or they cannot safely be allowed to develop the military equipment which will make those forms of government, or those particular policies, effectively dangerous to the world at large. I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps not be able to deal with these matters to-day, but, after all, we are at the commencement of one of the most important phases in the whole history of civilisation. We have seen the world as we knew it shattered around us and—the Moscow Conference is significant and important for this very reason—we are now commencing the task, of building up our civilisation again.
There will be differences in this House as to the methods we must pursue, but before these differences are allowed to mature and to cause either conflict or dispute it is enormously important that we should know what sort of course the Government propose to pursue. It necessarily follows that there are a great many things the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to tell us, either now or in the near future, about either the Moscow Conference or the development of these matters, but if we in this House are to take the line that we are not to discuss these matters, that we are not to arouse controversy on questions of this nature until hostilities are ended, until the whole circumstances that we have to debate are brought into the light of day, then I want to suggest that we shall find a state of affairs in which so many faits accompli mark the political scene that it will be extraordinarily difficult for this House or for the nation to control and develop the post-war plan, either domestically or in foreign affairs at all. So I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the time has not come or may not at least come


in the Debate on the Address, which will take place in the near future, to develop these matters rather further and to tell us at least something of the lines along which not only His Majesty's Government and the right hon. Gentleman but the representatives of America and Russia are thinking on these matters and the lines which they propose to pursue.
I think it is reasonable to say that in the modern world we might have a system of no commitments with the great or small Powers at all. I think that is reasonable but unintelligent. That is going back to a state of affairs rather less good than that which prevailed before the war began. We can scrap the League of Nations, as some hon. Members desire, and relapse in international affairs into practically a condition of anarchy. Or, we can try once again the disastrous kind of system we pursued in the interval between the two wars. But if we are to do neither of these things it seems only reasonable and intelligent to say that in the condition which we find prevailing in the 20th century it is becoming fundamentally important for us to make commitments for the preservation not only of security but of that economic security which is becoming more and more important if peace is to prevail.
The most deplorable of all the positions we can take up is to make important commitments and then pursue a policy, politically or militarily, of laisser faire which will leave the door wide open for any nation to start monkeying with those political snow slides which are so easy to begin and so difficult to interfere with once they have taken shape and which are so certain to end finally in another war. To-day sovereignty means freedom, as it always means freedom, to interfere with the interests and the rights and well-being of your neighbour if you so desire. Therefore, the question must now arise as to how far sovereignty is to be allowed to remain the prerogative of the independent nations of the world. I do not think this is a simple matter of political theory; it goes deep down not only to the question of military security and of political well-being but down to the fundamental question of economic prosperity, and it is such that I would commend it to the attention of the House. After all, in domestic matters your premium to your fire insurance company would go up by leaps and bounds if the

police force was to be wound up or the fire brigade scrapped. I think that is elementary, and it must remain true in the wider sphere of international politics. Your insurance rates must rise in the same way if you have no organised resources to deal with the outbreaks or thefts which may occur in international affairs. It is for this House to consider urgently on what course we intend to embark after the war, whether we are to embark on a course which will involve unlimited military commitments without any assurance that other peopde at the same time will bear part of the burdens, or whether we are to follow the course which will enable nations between themselves to restrain an aggressor without placing an intolerable burden upon the future.
Before I sit down I would like to say a word or two about the position of France. There are several courses which we might pursue. We might keep France weak deliberately, and there are certain policies in world affairs to-day which are directed towards that end. We might leave her to stew in her own juice, so to speak, and to receive what fate destiny may send her. Or we might follow the third course of trying to resurrect France as a great Power. I do not want to pursue, earnestly to-day the course which I think is the right one to follow, namely, building France up again. But I should like to urge on the House that the time has now come when we shall have deliberately to follow one of these three courses, and whichever one we follow will have consequences of immense importance and repercussions of immense significance to the world. After all, whatever view may be taken of France and French politics and France's position in Europe by Russia, the United States, or any other Power, our position in Europe, our relation to the demands that have arisen and which may arise in the future, is largely conditioned by the state of affairs that may exist in France. I would not press the right hon. Gentleman to include France in the European Commission, but I would ask him earnestly to keep the House informed as to the line of policy, which I am sure he most earnestly desires to pursue, of building up again and then maintaining France as a great European Power.
The right hon. Gentleman deserves a great deal of sympathy from the House and the country. He alone of all the front rank statesmen of the present day may live to hear the cheering turn to ululation and the applause to groans. He alone may possibly some day see the air thick with chickens coming home to roost and may find himself as responsible before the world of that day as he is responsible now for the consequences of the policy that we are about to pursue. I believe all sections of the House desire to fortify him and wish him well in his task, but I think we should place it on record as being essential that he shall carry the country with him in this great matter of building up again an international comity in the world. This House is not unwilling to place a great deal of confidence, irrespective of party, in him in his efforts for peace, but I am certain that there will be unity neither inside the House nor inside the country unless the House and the country are kept privy, as far as is conceivably possible, to the policy which the Government propose to pursue and which may fulfil what is, I believe, that earnest desire of the nation to see a new page of history written by the British people which shall not only add lustre to our past but represent something in the history of mankind which shall be told far beyond the annals of our race and time.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I am not often gregarious, but I feel on this occasion happy in following the crowd in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his successful mission to Moscow, by which I believe he has rendered great service not only to this country but to humanity, it may be, for generations to come. Some measure of his success may be seen already in Marshal Stalin's speech the other day, when, for almost the first time on record, some public recognition was given in Russia of the help which we have afforded to that country during the past two or three years. That is an important step forward, because it shows a growing confidence between the two countries, a confidence which I believe to be essential not only for war but for peace also, and a possibility of leading to a future understanding which will be a great contribution to the peace of the world. How this success of the Foreign Secretary

was achieved we, of course, do not know, nor do we expect to be told what methods he used. That has this advantage, that it leaves us free to speculate, and my guess is that it was achieved by complete frankness and plain speaking, and I believe that is what is most essential in all our foreign relationships.
There is, for us, a lesson in that, and one which we might well apply to our relationship with America. The Prime Minister has more than once exhorted us not to say anything critical of America, scarcely to mention it, in case we say something at which they may be affronted. While he is the navigator of the ship, I, as a humble member of the crew, do not propose to disregard his advice, but I hope he will think again about that and leave us free to criticise. I believe it is a misunderstanding of the American mentality. They do not hesitate to criticise us, and they are not tender in giving or receiving blows. They expect to receive them, and they do not mind giving them. I believe it to be a mistake to have hurt feelings when talking about each other. I believe that we and the Americans will get on far better in the future if we speak quite plainly and frankly both to and of one another, and I hope that the lesson of what I believe to be the plain speaking which has taken place in Russia will be applied in our relationship with the United States. I believe the advice which the Prime Minister gives us in that respect is misconceived, because I believe it fosters the idea that America is in the war to assist us. I hope it is quite plain by now that she is not in the war to assist us but is in it just as much to assist herself, as we all are. We are all in it to help each other to achieve world peace. So far as my right hon. Friend's speech related to Turkey, he naturally was not able to tell us anything, but I hope that when he spoke to the Turkish representatives he mentioned, in passing, the fate that falls to people who miss the boat and that there is to those people a danger of falling into the dockyard. I do not want to say any more about it than that.
We shall, I hope, see, following upon the Foreign Secretary's journey, the beginning of unity. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was sceptical of this result and did not believe that people with such different political philosophies could possibly in time of war find a mutual


understanding. It is a commonplace to say that in time of war you must prepare for peace. I wish to emphasise something far more important; that if you cannot do it in war-time you will certainly never do it in peace-time, and I believe this is a great occasion upon which we can begin to build up a world unity which we can carry forward into peace-time, learning, if we are able to, the lessons of the last war. May I take an example from the United States, because sometimes it is easier to see these things from a distance? They still argue there whether it was the Republicans or the Democrats who torpedoed the League of Nations, and subsequently the World Economic Conference. Of course, it is immaterial which did it. The point is that it showed a general lack of desire to enter into world unity. I hope we have all learned that lesson and taken it sufficiently to heart to ensure that it does not happen again. Before we are qualified to enter into world unity we must first find it ourselves, and it is essential that we, in this country, should have a common ideal aiming at that for which all the people in the world are eagerly, hungrily and ambitiously searching, and that is the world that they are fighting for—the better world which is all that we are fighting for. In this connection I should like to comment on another phrase that has been used by the Prime Minister, "that this is no time for dreaming of a brave new world." I only agree with that phrase if it means that we must not be dreaming of it—we must be getting on with making it. If we can do that, and if we in this country can set an example, we shall be sure that we can bring into one fellowship of nations all the countries of the world and thereby secure an enduring peace.

Commander King-Hall: I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down as to the correct attitude to adopt for discussions with our American Allies. I have just returned from a visit to the other side, where I had the opportunity of meeting Congress men in a private and off-the-record manner, and I am convinced that the more frankly and unambiguously one talks the better and more quickly is understanding reached. I should like to record my complete and absolute disagreement with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin)

that this is an occasion when the only proper thing to speak about must be couched as a note of personal felicitation to the Foreign Secretary. I have not the advantage, if it is an advantage, of being in touch with any party machine. I am not provided with the sailing directions which one requires to navigate the usual channels, and I am not aware what arrangements, if any, may have been reached behind the scenes. I have to navigate my very small and humble political ship by what is called knob to knob navigation; to naval officers that means proceeding from point to point. I simply noted that the Foreign Secretary had returned from an extremely important mission and that the whole business of the House was re-arranged in order that we might have the advantage of listening to his statement, and if, after all that has been done, Members are not expected to rise to their feet and make such observations as they see fit on that statement, it seems to me that a great deal of time would have been saved if it had been issued as a White Paper and given us to study during the Recess. I feel that if Parliament indulges too much in this kind of behind-the-scenes arrangement we shall not continue to keep that place in the esteem of the country which I think we still occupy and which I should like to see us occupy to an even greater extent than we now do.
It is one thing, however, to lay down that it is proper to make some comment on the Foreign Secretary's statement and another to say that we must rush in with a whole lot of detail. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary himself observed that he was not going to give us any fresh information, over and above the very full communiqués which have been sent, but that he wished to give his impression of the atmosphere which prevailed. In a sentence or two, I should like to associate myself with the personal congratulations to the Foreign Secretary. With that modesty which is characteristic of him, he confined himself to congratulating his distinguished colleagues, but I was very glad to see that he also included the civil servants who were associated with him in that work. I am sure that anybody who knows the Foreign Secretary will be certain that he also must have made a great contribution to the success of that Conference.
The most important thing which emerges from this statement seems to be that the Conference is a public recognition and statement that the three great Powers are not only content to co-operate until the successful conclusion of hostilities, but are publicly pledged to continue to co-operate after the military operations are over and when we are faced, as we shall be, with the even more difficult task of winning the peace and making sure that the harvest from the military operations will be reaped in the form of a durable and sound peace. That seems to be a matter of great importance. There is one lesson which I have learned in the intervening years between the wars. At the end of the last war, I was a young man of 25 who had spent four years on service in the North Sea in what I sincerely believed was a war to end wars. I now realise that the task of ending war only started on the Armistice Day 1918 which we are commemorating to-day. The one thing which impresses me, and which I certainly did not realise 25 years ago, is that although right is not might you have got to have plenty of might behind right. The importance of the three great Powers lies in the fact that, in terms of might, if they hold together, they can do anything, and if they do not hold together, the worst can happen. In this total warfare we operate nowadays, military strength is the product of industrial strength. The three great Powers together represent overwhelming industrial strength against any aggressor that arises. In this picture I gladly include the Chinese Government, for though China has not a comparable strength today, I am sure that she will have it in the years to come.
To say all this does not mean that the three great Powers should dominate or ride roughshod over the lesser nations. Much of what people say about national States turns solely on their value and weight in power politics and without relation to their value and their contribution to world culture. So far as the latter consideration goes, the smallest State-may have as great a value as, or an even greater value than, the greatest State, but when it come to industrial strength, man-power and raw materials, it is the great States which count.
The second point which strikes me about the Conference is the recognition

that there will have to be set up ultimately, for the sake of security, some international machinery. Put plainly, that means recognition of the obvious fact that the League of Nations, or something like it, will have to be restored: It was well said, as Voltaire said of God, that if the League of Nations did not exist it would have to be invented. Yesterday I noticed some hon. Members making remarks and asking Questions which seemed to cast a certain amount of contempt upon the League idea. I wish those people would recognise that in criticising the League they are criticising themselves. The League of Nations could not be better than the States which compose it. It was a mirror in which it was possible to see a picture of the world's international face. It was not always a very pretty spectacle, but if one looks into a mirror and is not satisfied with what one sees, one does not necessarily smash the mirror. We shall need to set up something like the League of Nations, and there is hope this time, because it will start on the basis of the membership of these three Great Powers.
There is one problem which must have been discussed in Moscow but of which we have heard nothing. We have heard of the decisions reached in connection with Austria, but that was the nearest geographical approach which was made to the Central European problem, which is the problem of Germany. We did not hear and we cannot expect to hear at the present time what decisions have been taken in connection with this central problem of the future of Germany. I studied the observation in the Prime Minister's speech the other day that we must be fully prepared for a costly campaign in 1944, but he himself suggested that we might conceivably find the war coming to an end earlier. When I think of the question which is so often discussed, of the likelihood or otherwise of an early collapse in Germany, I think it would be wrong to be surprised at an early collapse and still more wrong to be surprised if Germany did not collapse at a very early date. We must be prepared for either contingency.
Since that is the position, I would like to repeat a plea which I have made before in this House, that attention should now be paid to the possibility of political warfare. It used to be said by those who agreed that this was an important weapon


in warfare, that nothing could be done in this direction until it was done on a foundation of military victory. I suggest that we have now reached a stage in which that foundation of military victory exists and that before long it will be desirable and necessary that some statement addressed to the German people should be issued by the three leaders. There are many opinions as to what that statement should contain and I shall not detain the House by going into any details. I would make only one suggestion. The Foreign Secretary truly said that after political security has been established the question of economic security became of predominant importance. I would record my personal opinion that it is impossible to have economic security and economic prosperity in Europe if we allow economic chaos to exist in Germany.
I do not approach this subject in the least from an emotional point of view, but when there are 70,000,000 people in the particular geographical situation occupied by Germany, I do not believe it is practical politics to hope to have a prosperous Europe with those people wallowing in economic chaos. I want to see Germany occupied by military forces and I am as insistent as anybody that the armistice terms should be of so stringent a character once the military machine has surrendered, that it will be impossible for Germany to take up arms again. I agree that the leaders of Germany should be held responsible for their country's foul aggression and I do not feel the slightest tenderness in this matter; nevertheless economic chaos in Germany is not possible without economic chaos throughout Europe itself. Such chaos would be the inevitable consequence of some of the schemes for denuding Germany of industry which are sometimes proposed.
I would like to say a word on the subject of Britain's role and duty in all the matters to which the Foreign Secretary referred. I feel that the role of Britain at the present time, as it has so often been in the past in her history, is essentially one of leadership. The Foreign Secretary pointed out the great possibilities that will confront the world if the three great Powers can remain united and can build on the foundation which has now been laid at Moscow. As I listened to the rather Celtic pessimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr.

Maxton) I felt that the answers to many of the questions which he was throwing out could not possibly be known for the next 20 or 25 years, by which time he will possibly be a member of another place. One of my hon. Friends interjected into the hon. Member's speech the remark that we had made a start. He was quite right. I feel that it is our great task in Britain to give leadership in this association. In the last century we had various chances, some of which we have taken and some of which we have not taken, to give the world leadership. I think that we are now having a further chance. The Pax Britannica came to an end in the 19th century, when the European Powers began to rise, and there was a chance in 1906–14, during which period we might have avoided the last war by challenging Germany either to accept British principles of the free way of life or be challenged on a basis of power politics. In the latter case we ought not to have been satisfied with a 1.6 naval power ratio. We wobbled between on policy and the other, and we missed our first chance.
I think we had our second chance between the two wars. I should like to have seen us throw all the weight of the British Commonwealth into the League idea. I advocated sanctions against Italy and I think we should have gone to war against Mussolini at that time. There is no great advantage in looking backwards in these matters, particularly in this House, when observations on Geneva and Munich are liable to arouse party feeling. I believe that we cannot give the world in the next 10 years the leadership it will require unless we are prepared, here in this House, to strive for national unity.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1943.
2. Regency Act, 1943.
3. Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Act, 1943.


4. Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943.
5. Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943.
6. Prolongation of Parliament Act, 1943.
7. Price Control (Regulation of Disposal of Stocks) Act, 1943.
8. Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943.
9. Workmen's Compensation (Temporary Increases) Act, 1943.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919—

Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1943

MOSCOW CONFERENCE

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Commander King-Hall: I was just saying that the rôle of Britain in the years to come will be essentially one of leadership, and I also said that in order to give that leadership and to give it adequately we must remain united here at home. We are united here at home. There has never been such unity in our history as there is in the nation to-day. I want to say to Ministers of all parties that the nation is looking for a lead in this matter. I would like to suggest to them that they should not be so timid as they have been recently in their speeches. What seems to happen is this, that a Minister will get up, and he will make a speech on the need of national unity, a performance, as it were on the tight-rope of national unity high above the party crowd, and yet, a few weeks later, he will come down into the circus arena and go in front of his particular party section of the audience and do the tumbling tricks of party politics. I should like the Ministers to be a little more forthright in this matter and to say that either they do not or do agree that there should be a National Government after the war. I think it is essential for the welfare of this country and for the good of the whole world that we should have such a Government. The Prime Minister, who has given such great services to this country, can, in my humble judgment, put the coping stone on this if he will come out quite clearly and say that during at least the first five

years after this war we must strive in every way to have a National Government supported on the widest possible basis.

Mr. Mander: I should like to add my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary for the very notable success he has achieved at Moscow. It may well be a turning point in the history of the world. It is a shattering moral blow to our enemies, and we are enabled now for the first time to look with some confidence beyond military victory to the fields of peace and to envisage a situation which, if developed with courage, may well mean that this is the last world war that will ever take place. My right hon. Friend has laid well the foundations for that. He made it clear that we must make use of the reality of power which lies with the three great States, and, in adopting that policy, he has remedied one of the main faults of the League of Nations, which was, of course, that the obligations were loose and the arrangements for firm action were not arranged in time. We are going to remedy that. We are going to make certain that power will operate on the largest scale at the first possible moment without the slightest doubt. That is the great value of the decisions of these three nations to work together. The Foreign Secretary also made it clear that he does not mean, because we have adopted the practical course of using the Forces of the three great Powers, that the smaller Powers are not to be encouraged and consulted. I know there is a good deal of doubt and bewilderment among them as to where they precisely come into the picture, and I hope that every possible step will be taken to make them feel that their advice and help are wanted. I am wondering if the meetings which were held at St. James's Palace at certain intervals in the past could not be revived. They did give a good deal of satisfaction to the smaller Powers and made them feel that they were in the picture. I hope consideration will be given to the possibility of holding meetings of that kind more frequently and giving publicity to them. Otherwise we run the risk of creating a good deal of misunderstanding among some of our most loyal and faithful friends, although they may be small Powers.
I would put it this way, that in this new arrangement we have to get it into


the minds of people that, just as in the past, if ever the British Empire was attacked every citizen of the Empire reacted at once, so in future if there is an attack upon any State in the world the citizens of the three great Powers and all other Powers will react in the same way, and be equally determined to maintain peace and order and to deal effectually with the aggressor. It seems to follow naturally that there will be arrangements for the mutual use of both sea and air bases among the three great Powers and the smaller Powers too. That seems a natural consequence which would give a great deal of satisfaction when it has been properly worked out.
Some reference has been made to the position of Poland. All I would say is that the events that have taken place can to my mind have been only to the advantage of Poland. Her great hope and the only hope for the peace of the world is that there should be good will and complete understanding between this country and Russia and America as well. In an atmosphere of that kind there is an opportunity for building up a strong and independent Poland such as Marshal Stalin has referred to, but obviously if there are to be ill will, hostility and misunderstanding between this country and Russia, the prospects for Poland and for the world are poor. When I have ventured to put that point of view to responsible Polish statesmen they have agreed that that was the line of policy which held out the best prospects for them. Another interesting point in this connection arises out of the new machinery set up. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the three Powers, including Russia, are going to decide the fate of Italy and other European Powers, and it seems to follow automatically that the same conditions will apply in considering countries in the East, such as Poland and others, and that the three Powers will discuss matters and come to agreed decisions. That again is a hopeful step forward.
I should like to make a reference to the question of Austria. The Austrians are naturally delighted, both in this country and in Austria, where they reacted at once to the new decision that has been taken, but it would be of little use merely to revive Austrian sovereignty and leave it at that. For a small country with tariff walls cutting her off from her neighbours complete national sovereignty is national

suicide. We all realise that some surrender of sovereignty is necessary to maintain any sovereignty at all, and I was glad, therefore, to see the reference in the documents published to the neighbours of Austria, in which I imagine there is a clear hint that it is hoped there will some time be a Danubian Federation of the countries around Austria—Hungary, Yugoslavia and others—forming a much larger unit which would have some chance of standing on its own. The wider it extends its boundaries, the better. But there is one point about that which we must bear in mind. Such a Federation must not be in the nature of a cordon sanitaire against Russia. It would be absolutely fatal should any encouragement be given to ideas of that kind. In the new spirit now developing I venture to hope that some arrangement of that kind may prove practicable, to the satisfaction of all three Powers concerned. If the countries concerned, such as Austria, are anxious to obtain the maximum of support and good will in this country from citizens, and no doubt the Government too, it seems to me essential that they should unite. Unfortunately there have been differences in the past. Take the case of Austria, and also of Albania. If all persons interested in those two countries—and the same remark applies to others—would form themselves into responsible bodies representing the various elements in their countries I venture to think they would be doing a wise thing for the future of their countries deserving of encouragement and support which otherwise it is difficult to afford to them. I think my right hon. Friend has done extraordinarily well in developing this new spirit, which breaks down barriers and so prevents the setting-up of barricades. We want to take power out of the hands of the gangsters where it has been allowed to remain for the last 10 years or so and place it in the hands of responsible countries who represent the great mass of mankind.

Mr. Price: As one who has in a humble way spent much time in trying to bring about an improvement in Anglo-Russian relations I wish to offer my small meed of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, but I believe, with some of those who have spoken before, that this is a time when we can afford to say something which is more than mere congratulation. As a Back Bencher, I hope not


an irresponsible one, I think it is my duty to say what I feel. I feel that this Moscow Conference is a milestone in the history of this war, but it is no use disguising the fact that lack of confidence between us and the United States on the one hand and Russia on the other was bringing about a very serious and dangerous situation. It is as well to be frank about it. As I see it, Russia had no confidence in the kind of Europe that she thought we wanted after the war. Rightly or wrongly, I hope wrongly, she feared that we and the United States wanted to see an Italy which had not really broken with the past, France under Darlans, the Balkans still run by generals round the present Royal courts and a Poland ruled by landowners and militarists with dreams of Eastern expansion. I interpret what happened six months ago as a reply to this. She withdrew her Ambassadors here and in Washington and gave definite publicity to a committee of German war prisoners, of whom the majority were Prussian generals, three of them, I understand, subordinates of Von Paulus, and one of them a grandson of the famous Bismarck. She allowed them to have definite publicity of a kind which was clearly running contrary to what we would like. That was a very dangerous prospect for us. It indicated at least that Mr. Stalin, if he really thought he must fall out with us, was preparing the ground for another setup in Europe which would not be to our advantage. I fear there was a danger in that. But I think that the Moscow Conference has now made good what had failed to be achieved in previous conferences in which we agreed with the United States about various matters arising out of the war and then informed the Russians about our agreement. It was a dangerous situation that was arising, but the Conference has removed that danger. But if I, in my humble way, give my heartiest congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on what I think is the crowning act in his career—

Mr. Pickthorn: He has 20 more years to go.

Mr. Price: I will add that we are not yet out of the wood. Russia will be the greatest military Power in Europe and it will at any time be in her power to revert to a policy of isolation from the West. She has done that often enough before in her

history. She has settled differences with Continental Governments and retired into the East, reserving to herself spheres of influence in the Balkans or in the Middle East, often not to our advantage. Anglo, Russian quarrelling during the 19th century led to war once and nearly to war another time and brought about a situation in which the tertius gaudeus was always Germany. We nearly went to war with Russia over Turkey in 1877, and it was Prince Bismarck who got all the credit and diplomatic prestige arising from the Congress of Berlin, which settled Eastern questions for the time being. So it has been in more recent times. Our policy in fighting Russia after her revolution, resulting in her isolation and the cordon sanitaire policy, brought about the Rapallo Treaty between Russia and Germany in 1922, which enabled Germany, in part at least, to escape from the disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty. I suggest it may be the same again. If Russia and we fall apart at the end of this war Germany, whatever forces arise there, will be the one to benefit. Prussian militarism may hide itself for the time being in order to see how it can get out into the open once more.
In saying this I do not wish to create the impression that we alone have been to blame. We have been to blame, but the Russians have been to blame too. Russia's political oscillation between revolutionary Messianism on the one hand and sullen isolation on the other was difficult for our people, and still more for the United States, to understand. But I do say that we must try to overcome it and the Russians must try to overcome it too, if there is to be mutual understanding.
As I have said, I do not wish to place the blame solely on ourselves for what has happened earlier, but after all we can say this: Russia by her victories has proved the soundness of her social and economic system. She could not have come through this trial had not the foundations of the 1917 October Revolution been sound. They were not brought about by methods we should approve of in the Anglo-Saxon world, but Russia's traditions and history are entirely different from ours. We must therefore try to understand her, and she must understand our different traditions. The right hon. Gentleman however has, I think, taken


the first great step, along with his distinguished colleague from Washington, in removing those difficulties which have slowly been accumulating throughout this war and leading to a possible catastrophe if they had not been removed. I believe that as a result of the creation of these Advisory Councils arising out of this Conference we have a possibility now of dealing with these difficult problems, of bringing Russia into the discussion of affairs in Central Europe and the Mediterreanean. We shall, I hope, have on the other hand the right to participate in discussions in the settlement of affairs in Eastern Europe.
There is a chance that we may now convince the Russians that we want to see a new Italy arise, and I should like to see peasant Governments in the Balkans, though whether they be republican or monarchist is a matter for them to decide. I am quite sure that we shall not have the co-operation of Russia in that part of the world unless she is quite convinced that peasant democracies rule the Governments of the Balkans. I believe then it would be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has said—and I entirely agree with him as to the importance of trying—to bring about a federation of those countries in some form or other, whether with Austria or without I would not say now. But I feel that the splitting-up of these countries in the Danubian Basin has been at least one of the causes of the disaster which has brought Europe to its present state—the economic disunion of these countries. Russia naturally fears cordons sanitaires. In future she will not fear them, I think, if we can make it plain to her that we too favour democratic peasant Governments in these Balkan and Danubian countries. So I say that if this confidence between us and Russia can be re-established all things are possible, but without it things will be black indeed. Both we and Russia must contribute to the creation of this new confidence which must become the pillar of the new Europe.

Mr. Driberg: This Debate so far has been somewhat general. I desire to particularise. First, however, although the right hon. Gentleman must be almost tired by now of hearing congratulations, I should like, as an independent backbencher, to add my modest voice to the weightier tributes which have already

been paid to the extremely useful and workmanlike job which he appears to have done in Moscow. "As we worked," the right hon. Gentleman said, "the sense of confidence grew." He has certainly retained, and he radiated to-day, that confidence. The air of diffidence which is usually one of his engaging mannerisms had completely vanished. I was glad to hear his tribute to Sir Archibald Clark Kerr, whom many of us have known of for a long time as one of the most enlightened and liberal diplomats. I think the whole House must have been deeply moved by his extremely vivid description of the devastated and heroic city of Stalingrad.
It is common ground, I think, that the Moscow Declaration must be the basis on which the policies for the various nations of Europe are now to be worked out in realistic detail, and it is with one of these details, with one country only, that I propose to detain the House for a very few minutes to-day. I should like most earnestly to suggest that it should be the subject, as no doubt it will be, of discussions by the Three-Power Commission about which the right hon. Gentleman has told us. On Tuesday of this week I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
whether he has given any undertaking in regard to the future status of King George of Greece?
to which the Prime Minister replied, "No, Sir," and he emphasised his negative by repeating very strongly, "No, Sir." He continued:
In accordance with the principles of the Atlantic Charter, it will be for, the Greek people to decide on the future Government of their country. The King of the Hellenes himself declared in his broadcast of 4th July last that, as soon as the security of the country is complete and the necessities of military operations allow, free and general elections for a Constituent Assembly will be held. Until the Greek people can express their will in conditions of freedom and tranquillity, it is the settled policy of His Majesty's Government to support the King of the Hellenes, who is at once our loyal Ally and the constitutional head of the Greek State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1943; col. 1080, Vol. 393.]
That is satisfactory in many ways, so far as it goes. What is particularly satisfactory about it is the initial negative that no undertaking has been given in regard to the future status of the King of the Hellenes, because a contrary impression had been disquieting many Greeks in this country and in the Middle East. They will


be very glad to have that assurance. What is rather more disquieting about the latter part of the answer, although I will agree it has a very reassuring democratic ring about it, is the suggestion or the implication that these free general elections are to be held within the framework of, or even under the auspices of, the monarchy. My sole suggestion to-day is a very simple one. It is this, that the Greek people should really be allowed to decide for themselves on the future government of their country by not having these elections prejudiced by the return to Greece before them of the King of the Hellenes. What I suggest is that there should be a plebiscite first on the question of the monarchy itself before the general elections are held at all. That plebiscite can be perfectly easily organised and run under Allied control—British, American and Russian control—and it would clarify the issue considerably. I am not saying anything at all personally against the King of the Hellenes. Obviously he is a much more reputable and respectable figure to us than, for instance, King Victor Emmanuel, who is the head of a State which has been actively at war against us—

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it quite right that Debates in this House should be used for attacks on the head not only of a friendly State but of an Allied State? Is that not out of Order?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member say anything out of Order. Hon. Members may not use improper language in regard to the head of a State who is in amity with this country. The King of the Greek nation is certainly in that category. Whether King Victor Emmanuel is in that category is a problem which I cannot answer.

Mr. Nicholson: I should be the last person to venture on the identification of King Victor Emmanuel.

Mr. Driberg: I shall certainly endeavour to say nothing improper about either monarch or anything to upset the susceptibilities of the hon. Member. I was simply trying to amplify the Prime Minister's answer and to suggest the way in which it seems to me and to many people, including many Greeks, that the Greek people should be allowed to decide on

their own future government. I was saying when the hon. Member interrupted that obviously the King of the Hellenes is a very much more creditable and respectable figure to us in this country than, for instance, King Victor Emmanuel. As the Prime Minister said, the King of the Hellenes is our loyal Ally, but it may be—I will say no more than that—that he is not so completely persona grata with large numbers of the Greek people. I am simply claiming that they should have the opportunity of saying so before the general election for a Constituent Assembly. The Greek Government and Civil Service are by no means uselessly dispersed. They exist in Cairo and London, and it would be perfectly possible for the interim administration to be carried on pending that plebiscite, which would happen obviously at the earliest possible moment, and pending the elections which would follow.
Hon. Members opposite occasionally rebuke some of us on this side of the House for presuming to try to say what we think the ordinary people of various European countries think or would like. They tell us that we must not assume that the average Balkan peasant looks at life in exactly the same way as, say, a Fabian intellectual does. That is at least arguable, but I am going to turn the argument round and say, again I ho not saying anything wrong, that Members opposite must not contrariwise assume that, because we in this country enjoy a constitutional monarchy which is regarded with universal respect, esteem and affection by the people, therefore all the peoples of Europe also necessarily want monarchies of one kind or another imposed upon them. That is my plea. I undertook to be very brief. I have been even more brief than I should have been had it not been for the intervention of the hon. Member opposite—perhaps the only case in which an interruption has shortened a speech desirably. I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that this matter is considered without prejudice in the proper quarters. We all, especially those of us who have had the good fortune to visit Greece, have the greatest affection and admiration for the Greek people and the splendid way in which they have lived up to their ancient traditions in this war, and I do beg him to see that they shall really have a voice in deciding their own future.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope the House will not think it reactionary of me if I preface my speech by paying some very slight attention to the two or three speakers who have immediately preceded me. I am bound to say that I was rather horrified by the suggestion of a new League of Nations to be designed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). What particularly interested me about his remarks—and I would couple with them some of the remarks which came from the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price)—was his frequent references to "smaller Powers." I beg this House to remember that we are a small Power. England is a small Power. Even if we can be quite sure of the co-operation of Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Northern Ireland, we still remain a small Power. The danger of talking of other peoples of 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 as if they were peoples of a different kind from us is a very gross danger, and it is very amusing to find that it almost always comes from those gentlemen who are most internationally-minded. I wish to return later for a moment to that point. On the League of Nations point, I think it is not wholly out of Order to say one word of advice. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton says that if you only have a good League of Nations, designed from Wolverhampton, all the citizens of the whole League would each one of them react in defence of the League the moment any danger comes from outside—I suppose the danger would come from the planet Mars—as, he said, every citizen in the British Empire reacts at once. But every citizen in the British Empire does not react at once. It took many generations until we got to the point where it could be confidently presumed that a high enough proportion would react at once for us to be able to be one global, self-contained, sovereign Power in Britain, let alone the Empire. If there are enough people in this country who really think that something of the same sort could be done in six months, six years, or 60 years for the whole of the world, I feel sadly certain that we shall see the wheel go round even faster next time than it went round before, and that after an even shorter interval of peace we shall have once more an even

more unnecessary and even more bloody war.
I speak to-day with very great diffidence, and after very great reluctance. There are a great many difficulties in the path of a speaker on such a subject, and particularly on this particular occasion. I think that the first four speakers to-day were all party leaders, one of them actually with two followers—including one Whip, it is true—to support him. Party leaders have an advantage over the rest of us. They can, for one thing, refer to themselves as "we." It is intolerable if an insignificant creature in my situation starts using the royal "we." On the other hand, it is highly egotistic and dogmatic if he very often says "I"—"I think" or "I assert" Yet there cannot be very much knowledge which he can honestly insert into his argument in an impersonal form so that it can be taken as authentic because coming from him, in the way Ministers can. Then we have this great difficulty in any discussion on foreign affairs, the great difficulty that it can always be said that whatever is uttered which is in any way critical of a foreign Power, either neutral or Ally, may do harm; and, on the other hand, that the wisdom which is likely to come from this sort of quarter in these matters is not likely to do very much good. But on that point I take confidence from a remark of my right hon. Friend, and I pause for a moment to utter my words of congratulation. This is the particular thing which I want the House to notice that he said. He said, about himself and the Russian and American statesmen with whom he has been dealing, "We do now know each other's point of view." He told us, indeed, that that was the greatest gain of the Conference.
I think it is the business of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs not only to conduct His Majesty's foreign policy, but also, first of all, to make sure in doing so that every one of His Majesty's subjects—and, most of all, the Members of this House—have all the information that can possibly be given, and, secondly, to make sure that he himself, representing His Majesty's Government, knows what is in their heads upon those subjects, even if much of it is very simple or very silly; I think that my reactions to what I know of foreign affairs in the last 12 months may be very mis-


taken; but, even so, it is better that it should be out and above the surface, to be corrected. The reactions of those whose prejudices are most opposite to mine have never ceased to be uttered continuously, in the years before the war and in every month since the war began. I ask His Majesty's Government to believe—and I hope the House, in the main, will press upon His Majesty's Government—that the time has gone by for much in the way of discretion and that we ought to have very full and very frequent debates on foreign policy. God knows—or Heaven knows: I am never sure whether God is in Order—I am not optimistic. I do not think the war is going to be won before Christmas. I remember that one Cabinet Minister thought it was going to be won before Christmas, 1939. I am not at all sure that it is going to be won before Christmas, 1943. But we have got to a point where it is not unreasonable that we should be thinking of the reconstitution of Europe after the war. Having got to that point, the most important of all possible considerations is that we should think on a basis of knowledge, and that His Majesty's Government should continuously know what we think. By far the worst of the mistakes made in the 1920s were mistakes made because, on the whole, people of one sort of set of prejudices kept quiet and people of another sort of set of prejudices talked a very great deal indeed.
There is a great deal to be said for the point of view of the hon. Gentleman opposite who suggested—and who left immediately after, so convinced was he of the wisdom of his advice—that this Debate should not be continued to-day. But it should have been possible by Questions on Business or somehow, that if that was the agreed wisdom, we should have the matter, as it were, placed on the Table to-day, with just a complimentary remark by the leader of one party opposite and a complimentary remark by the leader of another party below the Gangway, and an assurance of full debate later; that we shall, I hope, have in any case. But since we have not got such arrangements beforehand, those of us who have some thoughts a little different from what the Foreign Secretary has said—and that would not be difficult, because the Foreign Secretary did not say very much—upon those people, I think, there is a

duty that they should stay here and say something. So I now propose to try to say something.
I should like the House to consider very carefully—and for greater accuracy, as they say, I have brought the version from "Soviet War News"—some of the words in the documents issued from the Moscow Conference. The Foreign Secretary told us that the great benefit of it had been that it had created understanding between "our three countries." Indeed, that is a great benefit. I have no doubt that there is truth in it. I should have no doubt if only because he told me so. I have even less doubt when I read Marshal Stalin's speech and read that:
We can say without exaggeration that by all this they have considerably facilitated the successes of our summer campaign.… It is obvious that the opening of a real second front … will considerably speed up the victory over Hitlerite Germany.
I have no doubt that there is in Russia a fuller understanding that we, after all, are doing our share, and that to a certain extent, after proper consultations, we must be allowed to do it in our own way. That is very nice for us, and one may say, I hope, without being excessively jingo, that it is very nice for the Russians, that we should be understanding each other better and getting on better. But I want to say a word about the other peoples. The people responsible for overseas broadcasting do not seem to understand that what matters is not only the people that you think you are broadcasting to, but the other people who are listening, the people who overhear it, so to speak. We have to think of what Europe has felt about these declarations. I sympathise with the hon. gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) when he begged to be allowed to have some views about what is being thought in Europe. People must not assume too readily—and there has been a good deal of assuming lately—that all the people of Europe are leaning to the Left. But there must be a certain amount of assuming. I have been to a great deal of trouble to see all the foreigners I can and to read all the foreign papers I can. It is not very much when you have got it, and my judgment may be so poor that the upshot of it is worthless, but I do the best I can, and I must say that the impression given by the English newspapers of a chorus of 100 per cent. uncritical en-


thusiasm among neutrals is certainly not a fair impression. It would be very remarkable if it was. I think the British public is not, in those respects, very well served by its newspapers.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last was very anxious about the monarchy in Greece. I have not the least interest in the monarchy in Greece; I have no views about it. I do not care which side the thing goes at all. But it is a dangerous principle, this principle of his. His principle is that every part of Europe which has been occupied by Germany or by German satellites, including Italy, must, on becoming unoccupied, start absolutely from scratch. I do not know if people who think that intend to apply these rules to the Baltic provinces or the Ukraine, whether they suggest that we should then have an international Commission, with a Brazilian chairman, somebody from Scandinavia and somebody from Haiti, to hold a plebiscite in the Ukraine, to find out whether they desire an Anschluss with their great neighbour in the East or not.

Mr. Driberg: Does the hon. Member agree with what the Prime Minister has said, that it will be for the Greek people to decide the future government of their country?

Mr. Pickthorn: I believe it will be for the British people to decide on the future government of this country; it will be for the Greek people to decide upon the future government of their country. I do not think it will be a good thing on the day on which the Armistice sirens are sounded for the British people to say, "Now we will start from bedrock or from scratch and consider, e.g., whether we should have a republic or a monarchy." In Europe, wherever it is possible to start, not from scratch, but from the point where it was last a going concern, this should be done, and I am sure it is in the interests of this country that it should be done. I am more emboldened to say it because hon. Members opposite who talk the anti-monarchical, anti-traditionalist stuff, also when it suits them talk traditionally. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) spoke of traditionalist Russia and said that the more traditionalist the Russians were the better, and that though they had done things which would not have been done

in Western civilisation, it did not matter because it was all in their tradition. I have been reading in the "New Leader" that England is second to none in her revolutionary tradition. That is to my mind a good reassurance; our revolutionary tradition may go on for another six months or so without blowing up. Whenever it suits their arguments hon. Gentlemen opposite have every bit as much respect for tradition and continuity as I have, and know that it is necessary in order to carry things on at all that you should be traditional.

Mr. Maxton: What about the Germans?

Mr. Pickthorn: It is said that this is the time to argue that everything in Europe should start with a clean slate after the victory. I should find it very frightening indeed if I were a little civil servant with growing children living somewhere in a not very fruitful part of France, and in other parts of Europe I should find it more difficult still to swallow. With these things at the back of our minds, I would invite hon. Members to look at the declaration upon Italy. I hope that Italy will turn into a democracy. I expect that Italy will turn into a democracy. I should have thought it was almost certain that if you left Italy alone, it would turn into some sort of a democracy. It is very difficult to believe that you will make it more likely that Italy will turn into a democracy and that democracy will be popular and go easily, by saying seven times that Fascism must be abolished and democracy everywhere substituted, and then saying that
nothing in this resolution is to operate against the right of the Italian people ultimately to choose their own form of Government.
I have often put my signature to documents that were very badly drafted, because there were two other chaps in it. But this is a great public document which is apparently to replace the Atlantic Charter more or less as the foundation deed of the new world. Europe will be frightened at any looseness of drafting. Our ancestors were accused, I think, very unfairly and very excessively, our ancestors, men like Castlereagh, who was not very good at making speeches, and the Duke of Wellington, who was not highbrow though he did play a musical instrument, were over-criticised because it was said they marched into Paris with the


Bourbons in their baggage. If we overdo this crying up democracy, imposing democracy, I do not believe that it will be in the interest of democracy. Democrats are in this paradoxical situation, that if you are an autocrat you may say that your principles compel you to impose autocracy anywhere else. If you are a democrat, you cannot do that; democrats must allow others to choose democracy or not. And then there are different sorts of democracy. When the French read this and wonder what sort of democracy the Italians will set up as a result of it, they will be a little puzzled whether it will be the democracy personified by my right hon. Friend or by Mr. Harriman or by Marshal Voroshilov. Democracy is, to imitate the temerarious vocabulary of the Prime Minister, a tribigaous word or even a polybiguous word, and so is Fascism. I think I know pretty well what Fascism means inside Italy. When it is said that Fascism is something bad in itself I agree, but I do not know exactly what it does mean. When it is provided that everything Fascist should be destroyed, and assumed that everything that was bad was Fascist and vice versa and somebody suggested that they would have to reflood the Pontine Marshes, I thought that that was rather pernickety, rather sealawyerly; I wouldn't go so far.
I seriously ask the House to believe that when I began my speech I wanted to do my very best not to be laughable. I should not like the House to think that I am not serious on this matter. I beg the House to believe that it is extremely dubious whether it is in the interest of democracy or of this country or of Europe that democracy should be so much something imposed. There is a similar question I would address to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is about what is called the trial of war criminals. I wonder whether anybody would be bold enough to guess how often the trial of war criminals is clearly mentioned in these documents. The answer is, I think, "Not at all." It is difficult to talk on this particular subject without having some risk of being priggish. We have had a fairly easy time, and it is fairly easy for us to be Christian and forgiving. Any man of my age or a little older has suffered enough from Germany to be excused if

he feels a desire for vengeance, but still as compared with the Poles, the Greeks, the Belgians, the Serbs, we have suffered nothing at all. We have so little imagination of how terrible the world can be that we have not even feared things which they have not only feared but for years have endured. I should hate to sound superior and priggish, as perhaps I do when I say that the notion of punishing your country's enemies seems rather infantile, slightly vulgar, and extremely impolitic. If you are going, to punish them, I am not sure I wouldn't go the whole hog and say, "I don't like your dirty faces; you have done a lot of dirty tricks, off with your dirty heads;" there is something to be said for taking that line. I want to, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all this language in his declaration is carefully, chosen. It apparently indicates that people are to be punished, and it does not clearly indicate that anybody is to be tried. There is I think no explicit mention of trial throughout the document. I should like to know whether that is deliberate and whether that is what it means. In either case this appears, whichever way, a threat to be a wound to Law with a capital L; like the clauses about Italy it seems rather dangerous from a European point of view.
Everyone has talked to-day of Russia almost exclusively, and with almost excessive reverence; I yield to no man in my desire for friendship and co-operation with Russia. But there has even been language appropriate to the Deity about Russia: "With Russia all things are passible and without Russia nothing is possible." That has been said, I think, at least twice to-day. It contains some truth. It is also true that with Europe a great deal is possible and without Europe very little indeed is possible. If there is not, when this war is over, a Europe which is certain of her own frontiers, conscious of her public law, and of the authorities of governments and the expected standards of their relationships, if there is not something like that very soon after the last shot is fired, it will be organised by somebody, and I cannot see who else it will be by but Germany. We should not give Europe an impression that anything we shall do cannot be defended by European tradition and European notions of European law.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member must have overlooked a certain phrase in the passage which says:
will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those liberated countries and of the free Government which will be erected therein.

Mr. Pickthorn: I have never failed to get guidance from the Liberal Party. I do not say that the idea of the punishment of war criminals was actually invented by Liberals, but the earliest trace of it I know was in the autumn of 1914, when a Liberal journalist said that the Kaiser and the Crown Prince, if guilty, were to be tried. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. If we give Europe the impression that Old England, looked to as embodying old justice, cricket, playing with a straight bat, a fair deal for your opponent, is falling into that sort of error, it will be frightfully difficult to re-make the Concert of Europe. It says that they are to be judged. It does not say that they are to be tried.

Mr. Mander: According to law.

Mr. Pickthorn: They are to be punished according to law. The question I ask is, Is it the intention that they are to be tried or is it not? And one other specific question, what exactly is meant by the declaration in the Note implying that after the termination of hostilities the United Nations will not employ their military forces within the territories of other States? I should like some assurance on what that means and how far it fetters the policy of His Majesty's Government.
I beg of His Majesty's Government to make sure that this House and the country are much more frequently and fully informed about foreign policy and about the state of Europe than we have been for the last five years. One way to inform the House and the country is that all documents should be plain and unambiguous. I do not want to criticise my right hon. Friend, because I think that it was a momentary inadvertence, and also I did not get it down accurately, but his last sentence to-day might frighten many Europeans. It was something to the effect that he hoped that we, that was Russia and us, could get together to arrange Europe so as to give it a chance of peace once more. I beg that every

time there is a Governmental utterance about foreign policy there should be insistence that Europe is what we care about, as much as we care about our Alliance with the United States and about Russia, and that we do not think Europe can be reconstituted on a blank slate, placed so high that only the three very biggest boys can draw on it. We must remember that Europe is older than this country, older than the United States, older than Russia or our Empire. It is only an ill-shaped promontory upon the face of Asia, but most of the greatness of human history has come out of it. There are old lines, long traditions of law and of decency, of what is to be accepted and what is not, often contravened, but the standards have been there for hundreds, even thousands of years, and unless we continually restate in our public declarations that when setting our hands to help reconstitute Europe we shall hava to do it by beginning from what was left of the public statute and international law of Europe, when tyranny first burst upon it and burst it to pieces, unless we do that, our chance of retaining the leadership of Europe goes, and without that I believe it will be almost impossible to continue to be either the elder brother of the British Empire or the equal partner of the United States of America.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will survive the shock of learning that I find myself in a great measure of agreement with him. He deprecated the position of the back-bencher from which he spoke, in contrast with the four or five party leaders who spoke earlier; but without disrespect, to them I think that in content and in wit his speech was in a large measure superior to theirs. He deprecated the fact that he was laughable. I can assure him that we were laughing with him and not at him. I particularly liked the note of realism which he struck and about which I want to say something later, if I may. There is, however, one point of criticism I would like to make. I do not think his comparison of the occupied countries of Europe with this country is a fair one. They have been overrun by the German armies, their Governments have had to fly into exile, and when the German armies are beaten back they will have to


start from scratch to some extent. We have a continuity of life in this country which they, unfortunately, do not possess, and that makes a very great difference.
In the case of Italy, which the hon. Member mentioned, I would like to suggest that the Italian people never chose Fascism and that they have already opted for Democracy. They opted for it in the strikes in Milan and Turin and by their conduct in the field. I do not expect the hon. Member to agree with that, but it is my version of the matter. As for the Greeks, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that we have a great responsibility in this country? I think we should all agree on the formula that the Greek people must be left to choose for themselves their own form of Government. The difficulty is in putting the formula into practice, and it is increased because the Greek people are themselves divided. I submit to the House that the Prime Minister's statement is the only possible statement from His Majesty's Government, and that our own Press and other organs of public opinion must be careful not to put themselves at the service of interested parties in Greece. For my part, like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I feel neutral in the matter; it is not for either of us to decide. It is possible to have a rigged election on one side just as on the other, and I think that we, as one of the great Powers after the war, on whom the refashioning of Europe must depend, must endeavour to see that the election is fair to both sides.
I feel I must add my congratulations, like other speakers, to the Foreign Secretary, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I do not develop that point, because in my opinion these sentiments are more appropriate for after-dinner speeches than for speeches on the Floor of this debating Chamber. I have tried to catch your eye in this Debate, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that our remarks ought not to be postponed for several weeks. I have spent a good deal of my life in propaganda in one wax or another, and I know that we should never catch up, with the effect, for good or ill, of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day if our remarks were to be postponed. If we wish them to have any effect, they must be made to-day. I am daring to intervene in this Debate only because the impression has

been created through the Press of the world that a very great result has been achieved at the Moscow Conference. I wish that were, so. I am perfectly willing to pay what tribute I can to what has been done there. But the chief source of weakness of our foreign policy in the years between the two wars was that we were fed on illusions. I had hoped that after the present struggle we might make a new start in that respect. Not only is it already being shouted that the war is won, but people are shouting that the peace is won before it is even attained, and I think that tendency will have serious consequences if it is allowed to develop. It is because the communiqué issued after the Moscow Conference and the right hon. Gentleman's speech have seemed to perpetuate that evil tradition that I have risen in this Debate. In the years before the war, for instance, the Kellogg Act outlawed war and we thought that war was no longer possible. That is a dangerous illusion, and we must avoid that kind of self-deception. I see the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University smiling. He spoke of assumptions and prepossessions, and I think we should find ourselves more closely in agreement if he would not always start with assumptions and prepossessions about what we on these benches believe.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member said he thought so.

Mr. Thomas: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Remembering his precision in the use of the word "we," I should not have used it. I committed the unpardonable sin, like the tailors of Tooley Street, of using "we" for the people of England. What are the practical results and what is the significance of the Moscow Conference? It has one great significance. The three great Powers, the great repositories of force which will be left after this war—the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union—have put their names to a common document. That is an important fact. But beyond that I see little significance. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised, on the continued collaboration of these three Powers that peace will be preserved. If they can act in harmony there will be peace; if they cannot, there is bound to be war sooner or later. It is, therefore, very important that they should get together and sign agreed documents, but let us


beware of thinking that the battle has already been won. This is only a start and a very small start. When we look at the actual content of the documents which have been signed we see that they amount to very little. The first heading of the communiqué is, "Security." The Conference merely envisages that at some unspecified time there will be some unspecified organisation which will guarantee the security of the world. It is a fond hope, which I trust will be realised. But at the moment it is no more than a hope. The communiqué goes on to deal with the question of Austria. It does not say very much new. His Majesty's Government have been committed to the restoration of the independence of Austria for at least two years. The communiqué goes on to speak of Italy and mentions things which have either been done already or which have been axiomatic for a long time. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to enlarge to-day on the subject of Italy, largely because I feel satisfied with our policy towards that country at the present time. It is moving in the right direction.
The final heading of the communiqué is "Atrocities." The punishment of war criminals is very attractive at a first glance but the more one looks into it the greater are the difficulties one sees. The Senior Burgess for Cambridge University has made a great study of this subject and I hope that at some future date he will enlarge upon it. As I see the matter, it will be extremely difficult to carry out the statements now being made. I hope all hon. Members will read, "The Trial of Mussolini," a brilliant piece of political pamphleteering. If they do, they will realise that if Mussolini is to be put into the dock then many of His Majesty's Ministers and other right hon. and hon. Members ought to be put there with him. Be that as it may, serious juridical difficulties will arise in giving effect to the desire to punish war criminals. I hope we shall be saved from the indignities that would certainly arise from any such trials by the pre-decease of the persons principally concerned.
It has been assumed in this Debate that the future peace of the world will depend upon collaboration between the Soviet Union, the United States and this country. I am very glad that the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University pointed out that we

are in no sense comparable with those other two partners in the Alliance. That cannot be too clearly emphasised. We tend to regard Poland and France as being in the category of second-class Powers. We are in that very same category ourselves so long as we stand by ourselves. Some hon. Members have spoken about the necessity for restoring France to her former position in world counsels. I could not agree more wholeheartedly, but we have an equal duty to see that we do not ourselves fall into the position into which France has fallen. If we are to play a role in the maintenance of world peace like that of the United States or the Soviet Union, it can only be as the centre of a world-wide community of nations. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and, outside this House, Mr. Lionel Curtis, are doing a great service in drawing to the need for closer integration of the British Commonwealth. We must in future act as a single unit if we are to act effectively at all. But even that will not be sufficient. We have had associated with us in the years immediately before the war and during hostilities a large number of other countries. I submit to the House that if we are to play an effective role in postwar years that coalition must be continued.
At a critical moment in the war the Prime Minister offered to the people of France common citizenship. I trust that that offer has not been entirely withdrawn. It is my belief that not only must we have closer integration throughout the British Commonwealth but with all those countries which have been associated with us in the war effort, especially those countries which have had trading and other natural connections with us. I do not know whether it need be necessary to give any formal name to such an association, but we can think of it as the British Commonwealth and Associated Nations. If we do not stand together, none of us will play any effective role in the world compared with those super-States, the United States and the Soviet Union. Some Members have said, with truth, that we must abandon our old notions of the sovereignty of States. I entirely agree, and I think we ought to make a start with such countries as Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, resurgent Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey, which have been so


closely associated with us during the war. Let us remember those wise words of Eyre Crowe, written in his famous memorandum of 1907, that every country with a seaboard is a neighbour of Great Britain. I think the time has come when we must bring them into a much closer relationship with ourselves. After all, there are such countries as Egypt and Iraq which, though technically independent, are regarded by the whole outside world as part of the British Commonwealth. I hope that in future France and the other countries that I have mentioned will act in such close concert with this country that to all intents and purposes they will be part of the same community of nations. If we are able to achieve that aim, we shall have reached the goal set out in the very moving peroration of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Let us not forget all that we owe to Europe. We are the centre of a world-wide community but we are in the first place a part of Europe, and it is from or through the countries of Europe that we derive everything of value we possess.

Mr. Murray: I should like to tell the Foreign Secretary how much I appreciated what he had to say. It is now some years since I first made his acquaintance. I think he made his first effort to enter Parliament in the Spennymoor Division. We did our best to keep him out of Parliament, and we did it very successfully. Since then he has made a great success, after the lesson that he learnt from Spennymoor. I am also very glad that I have lived to hear the speeches that have been made in this House in regard to our Russian comrades. The speeches we have heard to-day are very different from some that some of us have listened to outside the House prior to the war. I sincerely, hope and pray that the expressions to-day will bear fruit. It has sometimes hurt me to hear sentiments expressed by people outside the House. They have reminded us that they make grand allies in war, but they hope at least that that will not be continued afterwards. I am not in that category. I had the pleasure of visiting Poland in 1932. It was not only a pleasure but a very great privilege to visit the castle at Cracow. This may seem a very small matter in the eyes of the House of Commons but to me it was a very great inspiration. Whilst visit-

ing that castle we were informed that the beautiful, tapestries that had been taken from it by the Russians in the war with Poland were returned without any request from the Polish nation. Everything that we read in the English Press was a direct negative to everything that was happening in Russia.
I also had the great privilege of visiting Russia in 1936. I am expressing the views not only of myself but of my comrades from Durham and Yorkshire who paid that visit. We found the Russian people very kind, courteous and benevolent. They are a great people, and a people of great vision and foresight. We had the opportunity of going into any of the factories and mines and to any part of the country that we desired. We just had to name a place, and we were allowed to visit it, see what we liked, ask any question we liked and obtain any information that it was possible to obtain. A visit to those factories showed that these people were looking ahead and had a long-term policy in view. We saw where they were building a new Metro, we visited their sanatoriums and convalescent homes and engine shops and talked with the workers. We discussed their wages and their educational system. I have never seen in this country, or in any other country that I have visited, the system that operates in the Russian mines, which to my mind is the really economical way of working a pit. It could not be done under private enterprise. I was often asked before the German attack on Russia whether I thought the Russian people would enter the war. I had no hesitation in giving an answer in the negative. I never thought Russia would come into the war for our sake, but I said that if ever Russia was attacked by Hitler her men, women, boys and girls would fight and, though I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, my prophecy in this connection was correct. The Russian people love their country, they love their children, they love to work, and they love to play. I heard their President Kallinin declare that, if they could only have TO years of peace, they would pave their lavatories with gold. I believe they are a peace-loving nation and I believe they want peace. This is one of the greatest reasons why I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he peeks to make our Russian friends not only our Allies in


war but to see to it that they are also our Allies in peace.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to take the opportunity of registering my opinion and that of my party on this agreement that has been arrived at in Russia. I consider it one of the most important developments that we could contemplate, and it will have, a terrific effect in the fortunes of Europe and the world as a whole. The Foreign Secretary won a very warm place in the heart of the people of the country a few years ago when he stepped out away from the appeasers of Mussolini and. Hitler, and the position that he has held since will, I am certain, be strengthened very considerably by the work that he has done in Moscow. I listened to some of the sneers from the other side, and from certain notorious elements on this side, at the documents themselves.
The attitude already taken up shows the feeling that exists towards the agreement, because they discuss the documents and the phrases and the words and forget the big thing. No one would dispute that, if we could have got that agreement in 1938, the world would not have been in travail at present. The Foreign Secretary of 1938 was desirous of such an agreement, and the present Prime Minister was in favour of such an agreement. I remember those who were cheering the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) hooting the present Prime Minister out of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Cambridge University said no one was more desirous of friendly relations than he. During the Finnish affair they arranged a debate at Cambridge, and the hon. Member was on one side and I was on the other. I have never in my life heard such unspeakable slanders as were uttered by the hon. Member and his supporters. They did their utmost to incite the students to make a physical attack on me. There is a whole lot on the other side who do not welcome the agreement, and that is why they are so anxious to pick out here and there some words at which they may sneer in one or other of the documents. I am certain that the people of this country and of the Soviet Union and of America welcome the agreement. They pay tribute to those who made the agreement possible, to the three Foreign Secretaries, and express the

hope of the peoples of all the countries that this very important agreement will be the beginning of a development that will save Europe and the world from another such disaster as we are labouring through.

Mr. Eden: I can only intervene again with the permission of the House, and I do not propose to detain it for more than a few moments. I have listened to almost the whole of this discussion, and I should like to be allowed to thank the House for the spirit in which it has received the work we have been able to do together in Moscow. I have not heard one word said in the course of the Debate which could be other than helpful towards that work. A number of questions have been asked and one or two points made. I just want to deal with one, because I think the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—I am sorry he is not here—was inclined to be critical of the Italian document. I did not have the document in my hand, but I was pretty sure that I was right, and I have since checked it and found that I was right. There is none of that inconsistency about which the hon. Member made great play. What it does is to set out the immediate arrangements for Italy, and finally it says:
It is further understood that nothing in this resolution is to operate against the right of the Italian people ultimately to choose their own form of government.
I did not hear the word "ultimately" when the hon. Member read it out; perhaps it was faulty hearing on my part—but of course that word is essential. We have been at some pains to draw up the document correctly, and I was pretty certain that the inconsistency did not exist. I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House that we should cease this part of the discussion now and go to other business. I suggest that the particular lines of this discussion will probably fall readily in their place to be continued when the Gracious Speech is discussed. One or two hon. Members expressed the hope that foreign affairs might be further and extensively discussed. That is, I think, a matter for the House. For my part I always welcome such discussions, especially if they are in the spirit of comprehension and helpfulness which has characterised the discussion to-day.

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS (TREATMENT)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am afraid I am drawing the House away from very important international affairs, and I would like to join with others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his eminently successful Conference. We are now departing from great events to an event which concerns a young girl of 15 who got into a little difficulty in this country. The House will depart from the great world stage to the personal welfare of an individual child. That is not a bad thing. It is one of the things of which this House is capable, and as long as it is capable of that we shall be doing our Parliamentary job very well. It will be remembered that last Friday there was a Debate initiated by the hon. and gallant Member of St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) which concerned a young girl referred to as Mary, about whom he had already corresponded with the Home Office. There are two things I would like to say by way of introduction. One is that if specific and serious allegations are to be made either against a State Department or against individuals by hon. Members who address the House, I think it is reasonable and proper, in order that the Minister in charge may be able adequately to reply, that the Minister should have sufficient notice in order that he may investigate the allegations as to matters of fact.
I regret to say that in this case no notice was given of a considerable number of allegations of fact which were made by the hon. and gallant Member, with the consequence that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who dealt with the matter with his usual competence and courtesy, for which I think the House will give him full credit on all occasions, had to say on a number of allegations, "I cannot answer that, I do not know about that, but I will cause investigations to be made." The result was, I am afraid, that in the Press reports—perfectly proper Press reports—certain conclusions may have looked as if they were proved which on subsequent investigation appear to be unfounded on the information I have. I think that is not quite fair to the Home Office, and particularly, as I will reveal, it looks as if it was pretty unfair to some of

the individuals mentioned in the course of the discussion and unfair to a great voluntary organisation, the Young Women's Christian Association.
The other general point I would make about this discussion is this: We are in a time of war, when there are perhaps increased opportunities for young people to get into trouble. I think, taking the young people of the country by and large, they have been pretty well behaved in the circumstances of war, but there has been some increase, at any rate in the earlier years of the war, in juvenile delinquency. I put this point to the House with great reservation and great respect. It may be wrong in particular cases, but I venture to say that if and when some of these young people go wrong and get into difficulty and the law has to deal with them, I am not sure that it is always best that troubles about them should be dramatically ventilated in Parliament and the Press, because especially when it is done in the House some of our brighter youthful elements may feel in consequence that the way to sympathy and fame is to be a naughty boy or a naughty girl. That would be very unfortunate and might have a bad effect on the young people of the country. I do not make more of the point than that, but it is a point for responsible consideration by everybody when these difficulties do arise.
In the course of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone he made a number of allegations which were so injurious to persons who were doing their best to assist this girl, and particularly to the Young Women's Christian Association, that I have thought it only right, although it is a relatively small matter, to bother the House with it in order that I could put another aspect on the case for the consideration of hon. Members. This young girl of 15 whom the hon. and gallant Member referred to as Mary pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness before the Chelsea Juvenile Court on 1st September. The experienced Chairman of the Chelsea Court decided to remand her for inquiry, and being reluctant to send her to a remand home she (the Chairman of the court) asked the girl's mother to keep her at home for the time being which was thought by the court to be the best thing. Unfortunately the mother of the child refused to have anything to do with the girl, and there


was no alternative in those circumstances but to send her to a remand home. When the girl came up again on 15th September, the Chairman decided that it would be desirable to place her in employment away from London, and it was arranged that she should go into domestic service at one of the considerable number of hostels which are provided at the request of the Minister of Agriculture by the Young Women's Christian Association, for the girls who are employed in Land Army work.
I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that in running these hostels, which the Ministry inspect from time to time, the Young Women's Christian Association is doing admirable public work. I think that its work will not only be known to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture who is here, but to various hon. Members, from their personal experience. It is therefore greatly to be regretted that as a result of agreeing to help the Court and do her best for the girl, the warden of one of these hostels who agreed to take Mary into employment as domestic help should have become the victim of such mistaken aspersions upon her character as were made in this House last Friday.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Who is the warden of whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks?

Mr. Morrison: I am referring to the warden to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred and upon whom he made aspersions. He knows the warden. I think that enough damage has been done without my particularising who the warden was. The general effect of the hon. and gallant Member's statement was to suggest that this lady, who was in charge of this hostel, was of doubtful, if not immoral, character, and that she exploited the girl, and another girl, whom she had taken into the service of the hostel, in a manner which was calculated—I am using the hon. and gallant Member's own words—to turn them into confirmed prostitutes. As regards the character of the warden, it appears that the hon. Member must have been told a malicious story by someone outside the hostel, and I greatly regret that he should have repeated it in this House without taking sufficient care to verify its truth. The story had in fact been fully investigated when it came to

the notice of the responsible authorities, and I am informed that it is completely groundless.
The lady in question, who managed the hostel efficiently, is of high moral character, I am informed, and left at her own request to take up a similar position in another Land Army hostel. That is the information I have, of the most affirmative character, and I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he has some responsibility to consider whether he should not withdraw the aspersions or bring conclusive evidence that proves him to have been right. My information is that he was wrong.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the specific allegation that I made about this particular warden and which I am quite willing to repeat?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly. My information is that it is not true. I only say that this being a place in which, thank goodness, we can all say what we like, and in view of these firm denials, there is a responsibility in these personal matters not to make allegations until we are quite sure they are right. If they are denied and we cannot prove them to be right, the proper thing is that the allegations should be withdrawn; but that is a matter for the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I will not again interrupt the right hon. Gentleman it I possibly can avoid it, but this is a very important point. The right hon. Gentleman has got his information from the Y.W.C.A., but my information is from the people in the hostel itself. I got my informaion from three separate people in the hostel itself, who said that this woman brought drink into the hostel, which was against all Y.W.C.A. regulations, and that she had a man in her room.

Dr. Morgan: As a teetotaller, I see no wrong in a woman having a little drink in her room, and why should she not have a man in her room if she wants to, provided—[Interruption]—

Mr. Morrison: What the hon. and gallant Member said on Friday was—and this is from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
Incidentally, the first warden of the hostel, who is no longer there, and who was chosen by the Y.W.C.A., left under a cloud. She was


in the habit of having a man in her room and bringing drink into the hostel, which, as hon. Members know, is contrary to all Y.W.C.A. regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1943; col. 5037, Vol. 393.]
The Y.W.C.A. say—[interruption.] Have we got to the position when the Y.W.C.A. has got to be disbelieved? The hon. and gallant Gentleman can go visiting and listening to tittle-tattle, and he must be believed, but this great voluntary public organisation must be disbelieved.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: But the Y.W.C.A. officials were not at the hostel.

Mr. Morrison: The Y.W.C.A. have made careful inquiries, and have told me two things, that the allegations are untrue and that this lady did not leave under a cloud at all. She left of her own volition in order to take up another post of a similar character in another hostel. In any case, I suggest that the onus of proof is on the hon. and gallant Member. The onus of disproof is not on me and not even on the Y.W.C.A. It is the hon. and gallant Member who has made a public allegation, and I think it is his duty either to substantiate it or to withdraw it. Let the hon. and gallant Member not be lighthearted about it. I am sure that he would not wish that any woman, or man if it comes to that, should be under the allegation in Parliament of serious moral irregularity, in an important position, unless the allegation could be proved. As regards the character of the warden, I am informed that it would appear that the hon. and gallant Member must have been told a malicious story by somebody outside the hostel. However, he says it was some person inside the hostel.
As regards the treatment of the girl in the hostel, I have had full inquiry made Naturally I was very much concerned when the Debate took place. I read the report and sent some pretty direct minutes to my Department. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in attempting to answer all the allegations made by the hon. and gallant Member, on most of which I find, to the best of my knowledge, that he was misinformed, but I should like to say that I have satisfied myself that the girl was well treated at the hostel, that she enjoyed the life there and was received with every friendliness, both by the warden and her staff and, let me add, by the land girls

themselves, who were in residence, and that she herself, that is to say, the girl known as Mary, would have wished to stay there if her mother had not removed her. The hon. and gallant Member made a great point about the girl being overworked at the hostel, and, on the information before me when the hon. and gallant Member first brought the case to my notice, I felt that for the first fortnight of her stay she might have been overdoing it. Further inquiries, however, have put the matter in a somewhat different light. It is true, we admit, that during the first fortnight the girl's hours of duty were long, and they were subsequently shortened, but the actual work was intermittent, and there is no reason to believe that it was harder than that being done by many other girls of similar age under war conditions.
The hon. and gallant Member further alleged that, owing to lack of proper supervision, the girl was able to go to a neighbouring town which was full of troops. This allegation must, I think, be based upon an erroneous idea that the girl was sent to the hostel for custodial training and that it was the duty of the warden to see that she did not leave the hostel unaccompanied. Well, that is not the case. The truth is that the girl was simply engaged there as a domestic worker and that the warden had no authority or duty to control her during her free time. Indeed, I think it would be objectionable, if a young person goes into employment, that it should be, so to speak, semi-penal. It would not be calculated to have the best effect on a young person. There is no reason to believe that the girl abused her liberty to leave the hostel at any time when she was free. All my information goes to show that she behaved well during her stay at the hostel. I should like to add that the girl is reported by those who have come into touch with her to be an intelligent girl, of nice character, and the suggestion therefore of the hon. and gallant Member that she was in danger of becoming a prostitute is quite as erroneous as his remarks about the lady in charge of the hostel.
In his speech, the hon. and gallant Member also made a number of allegations about the way in which the probation officer dealt with the girl. For instance, he said that when the probation officer was originally consulted by the girl's


mother several months before the daughter actually appeared in court, the only advice or help which the probation officer would give was that the mother should give her daughter a good whipping. I am satisfied from the inquiries which I have caused very carefully to be made that the hon. and gallant Member has been misinformed and that this allegation is entirely untrue. As a matter of fact, at that time, the probation officer was under no obligation to deal with the matter at all. Probation officers are officers of the court, and before the child had gone to the court they should have said to the mother, "This has nothing to do with us." They are good, public-spirited servants. They could see that there was difficulty and they did what they could to be helpful, which I think is to their credit. They did take a great deal of trouble to help the girl, quite voluntarily outside their official obligations and they made arrangements for her to join a girls' club.
In replying to the Debate on Friday, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to a "slip-up" in the probation service, and it did appear from the information which was then available that there had been unintentionally an apparent failure to do all that was necessary in this case, but here again further investigation has shown that as much was done as was possible and requisite in the circumstances of the case. It was unfortunate that the probation officer who knew most about the case was ill at the time and had to go on sick leave. As a matter of fact, this particular officer had had a flat bombed out in September, and she had had to make arrangements about her mother who was about 80 years of age. These things do happen even to officers in the public service, and they are entitled to some consideration when they do happen. However, although she could not deal with the matter herself, she did arrange for another officer to deal with the case when she was on leave, and this other officer acting for her kept in touch by letter with the girl, from whom she received a grateful reply and also communicated with the warden of the hostel by telephone.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Did the warden visit this particular hostel and see that it was a suitable place for the girl, or did she, alternatively, ask the local

probation officer to visit the home? It is a very important point, owing to the fact that five weeks elapsed before she again saw a probation officer.

Mr. Morrison: She did not visit the home before the girl was sent there.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Did she visit it afterwards?

Mr. Morrison: No, I am not sure that she did, at any rate in the early stages. She communicated with the local probation officer, according to my information. Let us have a sense of proportion. Here we are in the middle of a great war. If we are to do these things as 100 per cent. meticulously as the hon. and gallant Member is asking, we shall strain the manpower available for these matters. What the probation officer did was to make inquiries among responsible people, social workers, and those people suggested that here was an excellent place for this girl to go to, she would have a good time and be mixed up with decent people. I should have thought that, broadly speaking, it was a very sensible proposition. The hostel was thoroughly recommended. If visits are to be made to every place to which any deliquent conceivably may go we shall have our work cut out. I do not think it was unreasonable in the circumstances that there was no prior visit. The probation officer did keep in touch with the child by letter, as I have said, and had a grateful reply, and she also communicated with the hostel by telephone. This hostel had been strongly recommended by social workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) says that it is customary for these recommendations to be taken at their proper value by the probation service, and therefore, it was not thought necessary to visit, before the girl was sent there. But for the probation officer's illness, it would have been after the girl had been there for a short time.
The hon. and gallant Member said that when he gave notice—and here again I come to a point which he has raised—of his intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment, the probation officer arrived at the hostel hotfoot from London. The assumption always is that the public service has to be in the wrong, that the warden has got to be wrong and these people are to be guilty until they are proved innocent. Here is an allegation


that because the hon. and gallant Member gave notice that he was going to raise the matter the probation officer went hotfoot from London.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is it not a strange coincidence? There was an interval of five weeks.

Mr. Morrison: That is the argument of the hon. and gallant Member. If he finds a strange coincidence, they are guilty. I do not know whether he has ever sat in a court and listened to the evidence, and I do not know whether he will ever be in danger of becoming a justice of the peace. I should like to give evidence as to his judicial capacity. He is, I am told, mistaken, as the probation officer had gone to the hostel before any notification of the hon. Member's intention reached her and there was, therefore, no connection between the two incidents. I hope, in these circumstances, that I have said enough to assure the House that in this particular case, not only was there no question of ill-treatment of the young person, but everything was done that could be done to help the girl to recover her self-respect and to lead a happy life in good surroundings. When the full co-operation of a parent is not forthcoming, the best efforts of social workers may be frustrated.
In his speech last Friday the hon. and gallant Member asked the House to come to the conclusion that juvenile delinquency should be looked into. This case, at any rate, does not support that request. As hon. Members know, there is another case which is the subject of inquiry at the moment, and I shall, of course, await a report of that inquiry before deciding whether any action on my part is required arising out of that case. I should like to say that the Home Office is deeply interested in the whole question of offences committed by young people. We take a lot of trouble in this matter, and it is a good thing for the Home Office that it has to deal with the remedial side of these difficult problems as well as the police side of apprehending offenders. I hope the Home Office will never become an office devoid of such functions. We do not want a Continental Ministry of the Interior in this country, and it is a good thing that the Home Office has got to find remedies and treatment as well as deal with the apprehension and perhaps the prosecution

of young offenders. We do take a great interest in the problem. My Department's advisers are exceedingly conscientious and I do not wish them to be discouraged more than would be fair. The Department is interested in the whole question of offences committed by young people, because we realise that to deal effectively with young offenders is the best safeguard against crime in later life. Many of these young people have fallen into serious difficulties through no fault of their own; sometimes through adverse surroundings, sometimes through economic difficulties and poverty, and sometimes through parents who do not quite know how to do their job. In birching cases I sometimes wonder whether the parent instead of the child ought not to be birched.
A great deal of valuable work is being done by probation officers. Good work is also being done by officers of local authorities, particularly the education department, who take a great deal of interest in these matters, and by other social workers. They may all, by some negligence or indiscretion, expose themselves to criticism. They sometimes do make mistakes. The Home Office sometimes makes a mistake. The Home Secretary sometimes makes a mistake—and sometimes Members of Parliament make mistakes. But just because there is an occasional mistake, it would be a pity to roll the whole service in the mud, and make them cease to be proud of themselves. I want them to be proud of themselves and to elevate the service by maintaining a fine esprit de corps. If they make mistakes they must, of course, put up with the criticism, but I venture to suggest that, if unfair it is rather discouraging and disheartening to those who are doing this fine work, with the sole desire to help young people. I do suggest that criticism should not be made unreasonably or without adequate steps being taken to make sure that the criticism is justified.
There is just one other point to which I think I ought to refer. The point was made that the probation officer had not readily responded to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's invitation to see him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought she ought to have been more forthcoming when he wished to see her. I am always anxious that officers in my Department and officers of local authorities with which


my Department deals should be courteous to Members of Parliament, but I am bound to say as regards this case that all the officer did was to be cautious and to check up by inquiring from the Home Office whether there was any objection to complying with the hon. and gallant Member's request. The Home Office said there was no objection and, I think, the meeting did take place.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: No.

Mr. Morrison: I thought I did. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member had by this time got to the point of raising the matter in Debate; it may be that the battle was on and that it might not have been desirable for the meeting to take place, but I think all hon. Members will readily agree that an officer is perfectly entitled to be cautious about giving information arising out of official duties, especially where the officer is dealing with confidential information about family circumstances. Officers have to be careful about giving information on private matters and it must be remembered that the probation officer is an officer of the court and is answerable to the court for his method of dealing with probationers under his care. It would be undesirable for a probation officer, without special authority, to make public, information about particular individuals who have been entrusted to his care by the court. This probation officer, therefore, was only exercising reasonable official caution in consulting the Home Office. The Home Office did advise the probation officer to see the hon. Gentleman and to inform him about the case, but I begin to wonder whether, in the light of my experience in this Debate, we must not even be cautious in going as far as that. If the information given is treated in a responsible way, I do not think there is any harm in it, but if the officer is liable to become a brickbat thrown about the Floor of this House in debate, then I think the matter has got to be thought about. I am sorry to have had to take up the time of the House on this point, but I felt it had got to be said. I did feel that in this case, good, nice people had not been treated fairly and I thought it best to make this statement. It is now for the hon. and gallant Member to make any observations he may wish.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I make one appeal? We have listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has made a very full statement on this particular case, and I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that it is not a case in the discussion of which other Members can indulge. It is not a question on which we can speak. I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member that, if he is not satisfied with the text of the Home Secretary's reply, he should take the matter up himself with the Home Office, by meeting the Home Secretary or his representative and thrashing the matter out between them, but I appeal to him not to take up the time of the House of Commons and have reported in the public Press personal facts that concern only one particular family. I think it would be a pity if this House indulged in such a Debate.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I do not intend to respond to the suggestion that has been made. Some very damaging statements have been made, damaging to myself, by the Home Secretary, statements which concern my integrity and the information which I recently gave to the House. I think, therefore, that it is only right and proper that I should reply to what has been said by him. I approach my reply with some temerity, especially in view of the fact that I am following a very efficient debater of this House who certainly has made out a plausible case. It is my intention not simply to attempt also to make out a plausible case, but to make out a very strong case in reply. I, naturally, was given no notice of the criticisms that the Home Secretary was going to make, but, nevertheless, I feel that I am in a position to be able to deal with them.
Before thoroughly getting on to the main issue, I would like to draw attention to the fact that early to-day there was a very special occasion, inasmuch that the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House and made that statement upon the Adjournment. It is customary for the Adjournment period to be used sometimes for such special occasions, but, generally, it is supposed to be for the particular use of Private Members. To-day two Ministers have made use of this period, which, I think, is unprecedented, but let me say quickly that I myself welcome it for two reasons. The first is that I am very


concerned about this particular case, and I am glad that we have had a further statement so soon and that I am given an opportunity to reply to it, and, secondly, I think it shows what an invaluable period this Adjournment period is and bow necessary it is that this period should be assured at the end of every Sitting of this House. An important part of our Parliamentary procedure is that a Home Secretary can come down to the House and take up some time on an Adjournment for a specific purpose that concerns one individual in this country.
To-day what has impressed me is the expeditious manner in which the Home Office have conducted this inquiry. In that respect they have set a very fine example to other Government Department, but, somehow, I feel that beyond that their example is not quite so good. At the end of last week this particular case was put before the Home Office in this House. It was stated that a child delinquent, a girl of 15, was over-worked and the reason for that was inadequate supervision. The Home Office had had ample notice that that was what I was complaining about—days and days of notice. In fact, the Under-Secretary commented on the length of my letter on that subject. On that occasion the Home Office definitely admitted that the girl had been overworked and that it was the result of inadequate supervision. To-day they have completely gone back on that admission. I would like to point out one other thing about that Debate last Friday. They then followed up their commendable frankness by drawing a red herring across the main issue. They went for the mother tooth and nail. How that was expected to help the girl goodness alone knows. But even that red herring lost its flavour, because the magistrate sent the girl back to the home and influence which the Home Office had so pontifically deplored.
Yesterday another peculiar thing happened. I expected to hear something about it to-day. The Home Secretary must be aware of this fact; if not I do not think there is very good liaison work between his officers and himself. The stepdaughter of the mother arrived in London, and Miss May, the probation officer, without consulting the mother, gave her Mary's business address. This woman then

went and saw Mary and as the Chelsea juvenile court was sitting, she also went off to see Miss Montagu, the magistrate, and Mary was subsequently told by Miss May that in a month, that is to say as soon as she is 16, she will probably be sent to a hostel in Coventry. Incidentally, the step-daughter lives at Leamington. The mother was at no time consulted about this and got the information from her daughter yesterday evening, and got the information in spite of the fact that Miss May impressed on Mary not to tell her mother. Mary is now back at home because the magistrate considered it a suitable place for her. I want to impress that point on the House. Why then will not her home be a suitable place for this girl in a month's time? Further, if it is a suitable place now, why is the mother not being consulted? Why is her daughter's business address being given behind the mother's back?

Mr. H. Morrison: As the hon. and gallant Member knew this earlier yesterday why could he not have told me? This is the specific technique of which I complained—that new allegations are brought up in Debate which the Minister cannot be expected to deal with. It is grossly unfair. We ought to have notice of these things, so that we can deal with them. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he has to choose between giving us notice about these things, if he thinks it is right to raise the happenings of life to these young people in public in this way or raising them direct with the Department, which most hon. Members prefer to do.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: My right hon. Friend is assuming righteous indignation about this, but he has not heard the other side of the story. As I was hoping to point out, it is impossible each time you come across another piece of news to inform the Home Office or any other Department that is likely to be involved in a Debate. In the second place, I got this information only a very short time before the right hon. Gentleman got up to speak, and my hon. Friend on my left can bear me out, in as much as I was sitting with him when I got a message to go to the telephone.

Mr. Morrison: And it comes out on the Floor of the House straight away.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: If I may continue on this point, it seems to me a very strange state of affairs that not only did this probation officer tell this girl what I have just informed the House but she also informed this girl that the mother and step-sister would write to the girl direct to her business address, and the probation officer advised this girl to tear up such letters, so that the mother would not be aware that the stepdaughter was writing to her. This probation officer has to my mind all through this case behaved in a most extraordinary manner. Not content with past mistakes, she is now deliberately attempting to make trouble in Mary's home. An hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense." I should like to know whether the Home Office have at any time during their investigations interrogated either the mother or the girl. If that is not so, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell me that, it seems to me a most extraordinary inquiry, a very one-sided affair.
To-day we have had statements from the Home Secretary that I can only describe as "red herrings rampant." The poor mother has again been made the scapegoat, and all the officials who are responsible in this case have become dear little white lambs. The main issue has once again been side-tracked by trying to make out that incidental details were misrepresented by me. Let us examine the Home Office reply to my allegation. The Home Secretary has received statements on this matter from various people. By his silence just now I gather he has had no statement from the mother or the girl, which in itself is curious. I wonder how his representatives obtained the information they have got. It may be interesting for the House to know that when I obtained my information my informants had no idea, any more than I had, that this case would receive publicity. They spoke to me quite naturally and without fear of any consequences. The situation for them has now altered. They have had to take into consideration who it is that employs them, and very likely it is their employers who have asked them to make statements and to deny things. I think the House may agree that statements obtained by the first means are quite as likely to be uninfluenced information as the statements obtained under the second circumstances. I think I am entitled to ask the Home Secretary whether he or the

Under-Secretary or any important official in his Ministry has seen any of the people concerned. I saw my witnesses myself, and if the responsible people in the Ministry did not get this information direct from people at the hostel who did they get it from? If people in the hostel were interrogated did they have their advisers with them or were they alone when questioned, and consequently likely to be frightened?
The Home Secretary has made great play of the fact to-day that I did not give him notice of many of the allegations, or perhaps I should put it this way that I did not give notice last week to the Under-Secretary of many of the allegations I then made. Can the Home Office deny that the main allegations I made in that Debate were previously made in that long letter I sent to the Home Office, which included the fact that I mentioned that the first warden of this hostel had left under a cloud. If the right hon. Gentleman looks up my letter, he will see those words which gave him ample opportunity of looking into the matter of the circumstances of that warden's sojourn, but to come here and try to lead the House astray by saying that I have done something which a Member of this House should not do so far as the etiquette of this House is concerned is misleading and unwarranted.
There were one or two allegations that had only come to my notice a very short time before that Debate, but which were quite incidental to the main issue. Really it is going to be absurd if in any Debate any information one ever gets, however incidental, cannot be used if one does not previously convey it to the Minister who is to reply. There would be no end to that. I would challenge the Home Secretary now to tell the House of one really important allegation I made which I did not refer to in that original letter that I sent to him and to which he so lengthily and courteously replied. Presumably there is no reply to that.
The Home Secretary goes on, trailing this red herring, by saying how Miss May, the Probation Officer of St. Marylebone, has denied ever telling the mother, when the mother originally went to consult her about her daughter, that probably it would be advisable to give the daughter a good whipping. That information came to me from the mother. I would point out to the Under-Secretary that when I men-


tioned that matter I did not do so in any way which I considered was to the disadvantage of the probation officer. I personally think that it was not bad advice on the part of the probation officer. I think it would be a very good thing if parents occasionally, instead of relying so much on probation officers, were to deal with their children themselves. I see no objection to that whatever, and therefore I do not see that it really matters in the slightest whether the probation officer said that or not. I certainly said it in no manner derogatory to the probation officer.
Other things were said in reply to my allegations. The most serious concerned my statements about that first warden of the hostel. Therefore the House will no doubt wish me to deal with that matter. Let us examine the Home Secretary's reply to that allegation. The Home Secretary has informed the House that according to the Y.W.C.A., who very naturally are on their mettle, this warden was in their opinion entirely satisfactory. I made, last Friday, certain specific charges against this warden, which, I told the Home Secretary to-day and evidently surprised him, I had got from people in the hostel. The Home Secretary was quite unable to-day to say that he had received contrary information from anybody in the hostel. He got his information from the headquarters of the Y.W.C.A., which is not situated in that particular hostel. I suggest to the House that my evidence from people in the hostel is quite as good as any evidence of the headquarters of the Y.W.C.A. I should like to know from the Home Secretary of whom the Y.W.C.A. made inquiries to find out whether allegations, which they had not known of before, had been made about one of their wardens. I think that this is such an important point that I will refresh the memory of the House with one short sentence as to what my allegations were on that occasion and which I deliberately repeat again, and I shall give some further chapter and verse as to why these allegations are true. I said to the House last Friday that the first warden of the hostel
was in the habit of having a man in her room and bringing drink into the hostel"—

An Hon. Member: What does that mean?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: If the hon. Member will be patient he will see—
which as hon. Members know it is contrary to all Y.W.C.A. Regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1943; col. 1038, Vol. 393.]
By drink I mean intoxicating drink. Perhaps that is the answer winch the hon. Member wanted. The Home Office has not denied either of these allegations, and I think we ought to have some reply and a definite denial of this, not just an omnibus denial as to the Y.W.C.A. officials saying that this warden's services were, to the best of their knowledge, satisfactory. It might confirm my arguments, especially concerning the drink being brought into the hostel, when I say that I am prepared to bring forward two people who were in that hostel who themselves had cleared away bottles which had contained spirits from the room of that first matron. That first matron, the Home Office will find out, will be willing to admit that she certainly did bring stout into the hostel. [interruption.] I believe she alleges that she did it quite openly. She used to have it at table with the land girls. Here is the warden of a hostel in charge of land girls who have been working all day on the land, who come in tired and thirsty, and who watch the warden drinking stout, which is against regulations, while all they can have is water or cocoa. I am suggesting to the Home Office that they have not yet specifically denied these serious allegations of having a man in the room, and drink, in the hostel, information concerning which I received from three people in the hostel whose names I am perfectly prepared to give to my right hon. Friend.
I only wish to say this in conclusion, if I could have the attention of my right hon. Friend. I made other allegations, which the Home Secretary has not touched upon. The Home Secretary has to-day suggested that this place was a situation where a girl could have good surroundings and a good influence. The Home Secretary has not said a word about my allegations concerning the previous girl who came to this hostel from the same remand home that Mary came from and who was having V.D. treatment in the local hospital, and who was dismissed because she was found with a lorry driver in her room. I deliberately refrained the other day from giving sordid details to the House which might be considered unneces-


sary. In fact, I understated my case. I did not mention what I could have mentioned, that matters were far more disgraceful than I had made out. I did not say that in the case of this particular girl I have just referred to—concerning whom no denial has come from the Home Secretary—it was not a question of just one man, but of two men being found in her room. It is a very serious matter, and I do not think that the Home Secretary should laugh.
Mention was made the other day about the cook of this hostel, who went by the name of Mrs. Willis. The cook's husband arrived one day to see his wife, and saw a ladder against a window. Being a shrewd man, he took the ladder away, and then went and consulted his wife. Both went up to the girl's room. They had considerable difficulty in getting in, and when they did they discovered what I have already told the House. There are more things concerning this hostel which I am prepared to tell the Home Secretary in confidence. Does the Minister say that, one way and another, this hostel was the proper place to send girls who were trying to make good? Does he say that this was a good influence on the 50 land girls who were there, and does he claim that this treatment of a girl on probation was just an isolated case, as the Under-Secretary claimed the other day? If so, I shall be bringing to him shortly a number of other cases in which he may be interested. It is really a pity that the Home Secretary has attempted to whitewash this case by trying to avert attention from my main and all important allegations, which originally the Home Office were unable to deny. It is a pity, because a lot of good was being done, inasmuch as, because of the publicity being given to this case, other bad employers of girls on probation were minding their p's and q's in regard to the defenceless girls under their protection. As a result of the reply I have had to-day, all these bad employers will be greatly relieved, and will come to the conclusion that whatever they do to the unfortunate probationers they employ, the Home Office will protect the employers because of their semi-official capacity.

Earl Winterton: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in all his statements about this case, but I would like

to say that in a very long experience of Parliament I have never heard a more cock-and-bull case put up.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion, for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Earl Winterton: It was a very typical speech from the hon. and gallant Member. I propose to deal with a much more serious matter, a question which goes to the very roots not only of the rights and procedure of this House, but of human decency as well. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the other day made a statement to the House, from which he has quoted, but from which I propose to quote again:
Very shortly afterwards, I understand, this particular warden left the hostel under most doubtful circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1943; col. 1033, Vol. 303.]
Not "I state," but "I understand," it is worth noting. He went on to say what he has already quoted, that the first warden of the hostel, who is no longer there, and who was chosen by the Y.W.C.A., left under a cloud, that she was in the habit of having a man in her room and bringing in drink, etc. The Y.W.C.A. is an institution which has been doing for a great number of years most admirable work in this country. I know something of its work, I have subscribed to it, and someone near and dear to me works in it and I resent very strongly the charge which the hon. and gallant Member has brought against the Y.W.C.A. in particular.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: rose—

Earl Winterton: I am not going to give way: I never interrupted the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am dealing with the charge which he has brought against the Y.W.C.A. in particular. He cannot deny it, because he interrupted the hon. Gentleman, and said, "Yes, you got it from the Y.W.C.A." Does he or does he not charge the Y.W.C.A. with giving false information to the Minister? The Home Secretary told him that he had communicated with the Y.W.C.A., who informed him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement was completely groundless: that she did not leave under


a cloud, that she left at her own request and was at present employed in another hostel. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has either described the Y.W.C.A. as a lying body or he has not. Does he accept their statement or does he not?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I have already made it quite clear to the House. I said to the Home Secretary, so far as the inquiry from the Y.W.C.A. wag concerned, I wanted to know from whom the Y.W.C.A. had made those inquiries. When I know that they actually made inquiries from the people in the hostel, then I am prepared to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Earl Winterton: I will leave the hon. and gallant Member's answer to the House. A more evasive reply I have never heard. I asked him a plain question: whether he accepted the statement made by the Y.W.C.A. or not. He then proceeds to say that he wants to know on what basis the statement was made. These people were, and still are, the employers of this woman. Is it conceivable that anybody in their position, having been asked a question by one of the highest officers of State, the Home Secretary, should have answered without having investigated? The matter cannot be left where it is. I challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make these libellous statements about the Y.W.C.A. and about this woman, outside.
I know of no fouler charge that can be brought against anybody than a charge against the chastity of a woman. The hon. Gentleman, of all people, made a charge about chastity—the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg his pardon. I challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman—and it is legitimate to do so—to make this statement outside the House where it can be challenged in an effective manner in a court of law. Let him repeat the charges and the name of the hostel and of the woman against whom he makes these charges. Let him produce his witnesses, and what witnesses. The hon. and gallant Gentleman goes to a hostel. In any hostel, there are always people who differ from the management. He takes up the tittle-tattle of a few people, and he says that he is prepared to give the names to the Home Secretary. What value has that unless it is on oath? Of what value

is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's evidence unless it is made outside on oath? I have nothing more to say on that point, except that I should think that public opinion outside this House will not allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make charges against a citizen of this country without substantiating them in public outside this House, and that is the challenge I make.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is not the Noble Lord aware of the fact that both the Home Office and myself have been very careful not to mention the names of any of these people?

Earl Winterton: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been very careful not to mention the names of anybody but very careful to blacken the woman's character. I have made my challenge which the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot refuse. He has to make his statement outside this House and if he does not make it there may be means of making him do it. He can be described in terms in which there will be no question of Privilege, and he will have to come into court.
As regards his attack on the probation system generally—and I apologise because I have shown some heat but I was obliged to do so—I would like to say how much I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Having had the privilege of being for a short time an assistant Minister at the Home Office, I would like to pay a tribute to the immense value of probation work. I suggest that, for the moment, we should refrain from criticism of this service, since, as the Home Secretary properly reminded the House, there is an inquiry going on which affects the whole question of probation. When that inquiry has taken place then will be the time, if necessary, to have a full discussion on the probation service. I would, as I say, pay tribute to the devoted work of these people and to say that I hope that Dr. Goebbels or any other enemy of this country will not take any comfort from the fact that we have, from time to time, brought up the question of juvenile delinquency, because the experience of police and magistrates is that in the circumstances—and there are a few black patches in the country—the youth, male and female, of this country have come magnificently out of the four most difficult years in our history.

LEBANON (FRENCH AUTHORITIES' ACTION)

Mr. Astor: I rise to draw the attention of the House to a completely different subject but one of great gravity and in which I feel that the honour of this country is involved. It is reported that at four o'clock this morning the French authorities in the Lebanon sent in Senegalese troops and arrested the newly elected President of the Lebanon and his Ministers, placed them under arrest and denounced them for a plot. England is a free—

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member means "Britain"?

Mr. Astor: I know Scotland is interested in the rights of small nations, and I welcome the hon. Member's support. I wish briefly to recall to the House the events which have preceded this. When British and Free French troops went into Syria and the Lebanon a proclamation was made that these countries would be independent. This proclamation by the Free French authorities was reinforced by a proclamation of His Majesty's Minister in Cairo; by a proclamation of Sir Maitland Wilson, the General Officer Commanding, and by the solemn declaration made by the Prime Minister in this House.

Mr. A. Bevan: With a qualification.

Mr. Astor: After an interval, when Lebanon has had time to settle down and the danger of war has gone away. The Free French authorities announced the abolition of the Mandate although I think that, technically, it could not be made valid by international law until a treaty has been drawn up. A few weeks ago a general election took place. There were two parties to this election, and it was notorious that one of them was receiving the moral support of the French High Commissioner. That party received a complete and total defeat. The party led by Mr. Khoury won 52 seats out of 54 in both the Moslem and Christian areas of the Lebanon. The newly-elected Chamber elected as President of the Lebanon their leader, M. Khoury, a man of the greatest integrity and universally respected. He formed a strong Government, with Mr. Riad Solh, a Moslem, as Prime Minister, and with one of the most outstanding young Christian personalities, Camille

Chamoun, as Minister of the Interior. The Ministry proceeded to get unanimous support for their policy and started to make the necessary changes to give reality to their internal independence. Now this lamentable thing has happened.
I do not expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can make any statement whatsoever at the present moment, but I wish it to go forth to the world that the Parliament of Great Britain has been seized of this matter, that we feel our honour is involved as the guarantors of the independence of this small country. Our intentions in many parts of the world will be judged by the attitude we take in this case when a freely-elected Parliament and its Ministers are overthrown by force.
I wish not only to give His Majesty's Government—who are bound to take a serious view of this—the knowledge that there are people in the House who feel deeply about it, but to make an appeal to the French people themselves. The French in Algiers have re-created the nucleus of a French Parliament. The resistance movements, the deputies have got together, and we have seen there a welcome resurgence of French democracy. The British Press, public and Parliament have welcomed this and acclaimed it with every form of sympathy we can give. We look forward to France as a democracy and to a Parliamentary institution rising again. Surely in this week, when France has re-established her own consultative, and, we hope, Parliamentary institutions, she is not going wantonly to destroy the Parliamentary institutions of the Lebanon State which, of all the States in the East, has the highest degree of education and civilisation and is impregnated with French culture, which has had largely the ideas of freedom implanted by French teachers and by the example of France in the past. So I would make the sincerest possible appeal to the French Republic that they will realise what a sad effect it would have all over the world if this action were persisted in. We do not want to say a word to aggravate a serious situation. We only hope that this will be cleared up. Perhaps I speak with some heat, but many of us who have served in that country love it, and have the greatest respect for its people, and the news is like a personal blow to us. We hope the French National Committee will


rapidly reverse what has taken place and allow other people those freely elected progressive and legislative developments and that freedom which they want themselves.

Mr. Muff: I intervene to thank the hon. Member for rendering a public service in raising this very important matter, reference to which some of us have seen in the public Press to-day. I cannot speak with the authority and the knowledge of the country possessed by the hon. Member, but I wish that my voice, as well as his, should reach General de Gaulle now that he has been so recently reinforced in civil power and the power that has been given to him in the recent happenings at Algiers. It is only a comparatively short time ago since General Catroux—[Interruption]—I would remind the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that it is no laughing matter if I cannot pronounce a French name in the same way that he can. There was a proclamation by that General in which he was the guarantor of the freedom of Syria and Lebanon, and we are expecting the responsible leaders of French public opinion to honour the pledges given only a few short months ago. We are cognisant of the fact that, as far as it is possible to get to know public opinion in Syria and Lebanon, these men who are now in prison received a mandate to administer local affairs in a country in which we are also so vitally interested. This country has enough problems which have not been created by ourselves but by other people. It is doing an injustice not simply to this country but an injustice to the fair name of France itself when these men are summarily arrested and placed under restraint and prevented from doing their duty to the people of the Lebanon and the people of Syria who are entitled not simply to justice but to every encouragement that this House can give to people striving for their liberties.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to do more than reinforce what has been said by my two hon. Friends. To my mind the whole question of the good faith of the Free French National Committee is now in question if these statements are true. We must, of course, suspend judgment until we know the facts at greater length, but there are one or two plain warnings which must be given. The

freedom and independence of Syria and Lebanon is a matter to which French honour is irrevocably committed. Britain has irrevocably pledged her honour in the same direction, and British blood has been spilt to win back the freedom of these two countries—and small help they had from some who reaped the benefit of it.
It is alleged, so we learn, that these Ministers, some of whom are known to me personally, have been guilty of a plot against France. It is apparently not alleged that it is a plot against the United Nations or the effort of the war. It is difficult to see what form of plot against France could be made by the democratically elected representatives of a people who have been declared to be independent of France. Those of us who have studied the problem know that there is widespread anxiety among the inhabitants of Syria and Lebanon that there might be a plot by certain Frenchmen against the independence of these two countries. I should like to make it plain that as far as this House is concerned, I do not believe there would be any serious opinion which would stand behind the Free French National Committee if they were supporting such a plot. I hope and believe that these statements may turn out to be exaggerated, but if they are not the Free French National Committee and General de Gaulle must realise that the whole question of their good faith and belief in the principles to which they are openly and irrevocably committed will be raised in this House.

Mr. A. Bevan: I hope that hon. Members who have intervened in this Debate will keep in mind the fact that the Prime Minister made a statement about the freedom of Syria and Lebanon but also added a very strong qualification and recognised that although we are deeply interested in this matter, the French nation have a special historical and cultural connection with this territory which makes France the peculiar trustee and guarantor of its independence. The Prime Minister has already, to some extent, qualified any statement made to the House of Commons concerning the degree to which we are equal guarantors with France of the independence of Syria and Lebanon. I believe it is very undesirable for hon. Members to import into this matter such heat and give utterance to such innuendoes against the Free


French movement until further opportunity has been given for investigating the matter. If there is one thing we do not wish to do it is to raise any feeling against the nucleus of the French Parliament now existing in North Africa. Some of the statements which have fallen from hon. Members should not be regarded at this stage as representative of all Members of the House.

Mr. Stokes: May I add a word of support to what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has said? I appreciate the services which the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) has done in so promptly bringing this matter before the House, and I do not dispute his correctness in doing so, but I think we ought to proceed with caution. If it is only a newspaper report on which hon. Members are acting, I think they would be well advised to treat the report with great caution until we know the exact

position. I have had some experience of these territories and some experience of French politics, but I have never yet understood what French politicians are doing, and I do not think I can be expected to know simply by reading a stop-Press report in a newspaper.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall): My hon. Friend who raised this matter was good enough to give me notice. It was very short notice, but it enabled me to get into touch with the Foreign Office and ascertain that there has been sufficient information received to show that a situation of great gravity has arisen in Lebanon, In the absence of fuller information, His Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a statement at present. I would hope that the matter should be left there.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.